Tabroom.com

3rd Annual Spring Break Special

2024 — Online, US

Lincoln-Douglas Debate Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Jonathan Adler Coral Academy of Science Las Vegas

Chinwendu Bolaji Ayodele Hire

Esther Titilayo Ayodele Hire

Putri Azzahra Hire

Last changed on Fri February 9, 2024 at 2:55 PM WIB

Debate Philosophy:

I approach debates with a focus on flowing arguments and evaluating them based on the flow. While I prioritize technical arguments over truth, I do expect clear and logical communication from debaters. Clarity of thought and logic is paramount, and I value well-warranted arguments over-reliance on evidence alone.

I weigh the claims by whether they are supported by two kinds of reasoning:

11. Truth: Why the claim is true.

22. Impact: Why this claim is important in the debate.

"Claims" apply to both constructive arguments and rebuttals, as I will weigh them side by side in clashes on my flow later. Providing examples or research findings doesn't necessarily mean your claim is true; you have to explain which part of the example/research can be applied to the argument, to explain why that example is important to the debate as a whole.

Weighing Arguments:

Debaters should focus on weighing their arguments and demonstrating why their impacts outweigh those of their opponents. This includes considering scope, magnitude, timeframe, probability, or employing metaweighing techniques. I appreciate clear roadmaps and signposting throughout the round to aid in organization.

Topic Relevance:

I prefer debates to stay on topic and avoid off-topic or theoretical arguments aimed at disqualifying the other team. Definitions by the government/affirmative team are allowed, but abuse of this privilege will be penalized.

Argument Evaluation:

Warranted arguments are crucial for winning my ballot. Unsubstantiated claims are difficult to vote on, especially when effectively rebutted by the opposing side. It's essential to be charitable to opponents' arguments and engage with the best version of their claims rather than strawmanning them.

Public Forum-Specific:

In Public Forum debates, I prioritize logical reasoning over reliance on evidence cards. Debaters should focus on identifying weaknesses in their opponents' link chains rather than reading from prepared blocks. Clash should be evident by the rebuttal speeches, and second rebuttals should address all offense or risk concessions.

Evidence and Email Chains:

I do not typically review evidence or participate in email chains. Debaters must convince me of their arguments without relying on my review of evidence. However, if requested, I may assess evidence for accuracy.

Kyson Patrick Bloomingdale Hire

David Coates Hire

Last changed on Sat April 13, 2024 at 8:44 AM CDT

David Coates

Chicago '05; Minnesota Law '14

For e-mail chains (which you should always use to accelerate evidence sharing): coat0018@umn.edu

2023-24 rounds (as of 4/13): 89

Aff winning percentage: .551

("David" or "Mr. Coates" to you. I'll know you haven't bothered to read my paradigm if you call me "judge," which isn't my name).

I will not vote on disclosure theory. I will consider RVIs on disclosure theory based solely on the fact that you introduced it in the first place.

I will not vote on claims predicated on your opponents' rate of delivery and will probably nuke your speaker points if all you can come up with is "fast debate is bad" in response to faster opponents. Explain why their arguments are wrong, but don't waste my time complaining about how you didn't have enough time to answer bad arguments because...oh, wait, you wasted two minutes of a constructive griping about how you didn't like your opponents' speed.

I will not vote on frivolous "arguments" criticizing your opponent's sartorial choices (think "shoe theory" or "formal clothes theory" or "skirt length," which still comes up sometimes), and I will likely catapult your points into the sun for wasting my time and insulting your opponents with such nonsense.

You will probably receive a lecture if you highlight down your evidence to such an extent that it no longer contains grammatical sentences.

Allegations of ethical violations I determine not to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt will result in an automatic loss with the minimum allowable speaker points for the team introducing them.

Allegations of rule violations not supported by the plain text of a rule will make me seriously consider awarding you a loss with no speaker points.

I will actively intervene against new arguments in the last speech of the round, no matter what the debate format. New arguments in the 2AR are the work of the devil and I will not reward you for saving your best arguments for a speech after which they can't be answered. I will entertain claims that new arguments in the 2AR are automatic voting issues for the negative or that they justify a verbal 3NR. Turnabout is fair play.

I will not entertain claims that your opponents should not be allowed to answer your arguments because of personal circumstances beyond their control. Personally abusive language about, or directed at, your opponents will have me looking for reasons to vote against you.

Someone I know has reminded me of this: I will not evaluate any argument suggesting that I must "evaluate the debate after X speech" unless "X speech" is the 2AR. Where do you get off thinking that you can deprive your opponent of speaking time?

I'm okay with slow-walking you through how my decision process works or how I think you can improve your strategic decision making or get better speaker points, but I've no interest, at this point in my career, in relitigating a round I've already decided you've lost. "What would be a better way to make this argument?" will get me actively trying to help you. "Why didn't you vote on this (vague claim)?" will just make me annoyed.

OVERVIEW

I have been an active coach, primarily of policy debate (though I'm now doing active work only on the LD side), since the 2000-01 season (the year of the privacy topic). Across divisions and events, I generally judge between 100 and 120 rounds a year.

My overall approach to debate is extremely substance dominant. I don't really care what substantive arguments you make as long as you clash with your opponents and fulfill your burdens vis-à-vis the resolution. I will not import my own understanding of argumentative substance to bail you out when you're confronting bad substance--if the content of your opponents' arguments is fundamentally false, they should be especially easy for you to answer without any help from me. (Contrary to what some debaters have mistakenly believed in the past, this does not mean that I want to listen to you run wipeout or spark--I'd actually rather hear you throw down on inherency or defend "the value is justice and the criterion is justice"--but merely that I think that debaters who can't think their way through incredibly stupid arguments are ineffective advocates who don't deserve to win).

My general default (and the box I've consistently checked on paradigm forms) is that of a fairly conventional policymaker. Absent other guidance from the teams involved, I will weigh the substantive advantages and disadvantages of a topical plan against those of the status quo or a competitive counterplan. I'm amenable to alternative evaluative frameworks but generally require these to be developed with more depth and clarity than most telegraphic "role of the ballot" claims usually provide.

THOUGHTS APPLICABLE TO ALL DEBATE FORMATS

That said, I do have certain predispositions and opinions about debate practice that may affect how you choose to execute your preferred strategy:

1. I am skeptical to the point of fairly overt hostility toward most non-resolutional theory claims emanating from either side. Aff-initiated debates about counterplan and kritik theory are usually vague, devoid of clash, and nearly impossible to flow. Neg-initiated "framework" "arguments" usually rest on claims that are either unwarranted or totally implicit. I understand that the affirmative should defend a topical plan, but what I don't understand after "A. Our interpretation is that the aff must run a topical plan; B. Standards" is why the aff's plan isn't topical. My voting on either sort of "argument" has historically been quite rare. It's always better for the neg to run T than "framework," and it's usually better for the aff to use theory claims to justify their own creatively abusive practices ("conditional negative fiat justifies intrinsicness permutations, so here are ten intrinsicness permutations") than to "argue" that they're independent voting issues.

1a. That said, I can be merciless toward negatives who choose to advance contradictory conditional "advocacies" in the 1NC should the affirmative choose to call them out. The modern-day tendency to advance a kritik with a categorical link claim together with one or more counterplans which link to the kritik is not one which meets with my approval. There was a time when deliberately double-turning yourself in the 1NC amounted to an automatic loss, but the re-advent of what my late friend Ross Smith would have characterized as "unlimited, illogical conditionality" has unfortunately put an end to this and caused negative win percentages to swell--not because negatives are doing anything intelligent, but because affirmatives aren't calling them out on it. I'll put it this way--I have awarded someone a 30 for going for "contradictory conditional 'advocacies' are illegitimate" in the 2AR.

2. Offensive arguments should have offensive links and impacts. "The 1AC didn't talk about something we think is important, therefore it doesn't solve the root cause of every problem in the world" wouldn't be considered a reason to vote negative if it were presented on the solvency flow, where it belongs, and I fail to understand why you should get extra credit for wasting time developing your partial case defense with less clarity and specificity than an arch-traditional stock issue debater would have. Generic "state bad" links on a negative state action topic are just as bad as straightforward "links" of omission in this respect.

3. Kritik arguments should NOT depend on my importing special understandings of common terms from your authors, with whose viewpoints I am invariably unfamiliar or in disagreement. For example, the OED defines "problematic" as "presenting a problem or difficulty," so while you may think you're presenting round-winning impact analysis when you say "the affirmative is problematic," all I hear is a non-unique observation about how the aff, like everything else in life, involves difficulties of some kind. I am not hostile to critical debates--some of the best debates I've heard involved K on K violence, as it were--but I don't think it's my job to backfill terms of art for you, and I don't think it's fair to your opponents for me to base my decision in these rounds on my understanding of arguments which have been inadequately explained.

3a. I guess we're doing this now...most of the critical literature with which I'm most familiar involves pretty radical anti-statism. You might start by reading "No Treason" and then proceeding to authors like Hayek, Hazlitt, Mises, and Rothbard. I know these are arguments a lot of my colleagues really don't like, but they're internally consistent, so they have that advantage.

3a(1). Section six of "No Treason," the one with which you should really start, is available at the following link: https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/2194/Spooner_1485_Bk.pdf so get off your cans and read it already. It will greatly help you answer arguments based on, inter alia, "the social contract."

3a(2). If you genuinely think that something at the tournament is making you unsafe, you may talk to me about it and I will see if there is a solution. Far be it from me to try to make you unable to compete.

4. The following solely self-referential "defenses" of your deliberate choice to run an aggressively non-topical affirmative are singularly unpersuasive:

a. "Topicality excludes our aff and that's bad because it excludes our aff." This is not an argument. This is just a definition of "topicality." I won't cross-apply your case and then fill in argumentative gaps for you.

b. "There is no topical version of our aff." This is not an answer. This is a performative concession of the violation.

c. "The topic forces us to defend the state and the state is racist/sexist/imperialist/settler colonial/oppressive toward 'bodies in the debate space.'" I'm quite sure that most of your authors would advocate, at least in the interim, reducing fossil fuel consumption, and debates about how that might occur are really interesting to all of us, or at least to me. (You might take a look at this intriguing article about a moratorium on extraction on federal lands: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-oil-industrys-grip-on-public-lands-and-waters-may-be-slowing-progress-toward-energy-independence/

d. "Killing debate is good." Leaving aside the incredible "intellectual" arrogance of this statement, what are you doing here if you believe this to be true? You could overtly "kill debate" more effectively were you to withhold your "contributions" and depress participation numbers, which would have the added benefit of sparing us from having to listen to you.

e. "This is just a wrong forum argument." And? There is, in fact, a FORUM expressly designed to allow you to subject your audience to one-sided speeches about any topic under the sun you "feel" important without having to worry about either making an argument or engaging with an opponent. Last I checked, that FORUM was called "oratory." Try it next time.

f. "The topic selection process is unfair/disenfranchises 'bodies in the debate space.'" In what universe is it more fair for you to get to impose a debate topic on your opponents without consulting them in advance than for you to abide by the results of a topic selection process to which all students were invited to contribute and in which all students were invited to vote?

g. "Fairness is bad." Don't tempt me to vote against you for no reason to show you why fairness is, in fact, good.

5. Many of you are genuinely bad at organizing your speeches. Fix that problem by keeping the following in mind:

a. Off-case flows should be clearly labeled the first time they're introduced. It's needlessly difficult to keep track of what you're trying to do when you expect me to invent names for your arguments for you. I know that some hipster kid "at" some "online debate institute" taught you that it was "cool" to introduce arguments in the 1N with nothing more than "next off" to confuse your opponents, but remember that you're also confusing your audience when you do that, and I, unlike your opponents, have the power to deduct speaker points for poor organization if "next off--Biden disadvantage" is too hard for you to spit out. I'm serious about this.

b. Transitions between individual arguments should be audible. It's not that difficult to throw a "next" in there and it keeps you from sounding like this: "...wreck their economies and set the stage for an era of international confrontation that would make the Cold War look like Woodstock extinction Mead 92 what if the global economy stagnates...." The latter, because it fails to distinguish between the preceding card and subsequent tag, is impossible to flow, and it's not my job to look at your speech document to impose organization with which you couldn't be bothered.

c. Your arguments should line up with those of your opponents. "Embedded clash" flows extremely poorly for me. I will not automatically pluck warrants out of your four-minute-long scripted kritik overview and then apply them for you, nor will I try to figure out what, exactly, a fragment like "yes, link" followed by a minute of unintelligible, undifferentiated boilerplate is supposed to answer.

6. I don't mind speed as long as it's clear and purposeful:

a. Many of you don't project your voices enough to compensate for the poor acoustics of the rooms where debates often take place. I'll help you out by yelling "clearer" or "louder" at you no more than twice if I can't make out what you're saying, but after that you're on your own.

b. There are only two legitimate reasons for speed: Presenting more arguments and presenting more argumentative development. Fast delivery should not be used as a crutch for inefficiency. If you're using speed merely to "signpost" by repeating vast swaths of your opponents' speeches or to read repetitive cards tagged "more evidence," I reserve the right to consider persuasive delivery in how I assign points, meaning that you will suffer deductions you otherwise would not have had you merely trimmed the fat and maintained your maximum sustainable rate.

7: I have a notoriously low tolerance for profanity and will not hesitate to severely dock your points for language I couldn't justify to the host school's teachers, parents, or administrators, any of whom might actually overhear you. When in doubt, keep it clean. Don't jeopardize the activity's image any further by failing to control your language when you have ample alternative fora for profane forms of self-expression.

8: For crying out loud, it is not too hard to respect your opponents' preferred pronouns (and "they" is always okay in policy debate because it's presumed that your opponents agree about their arguments), but I will start vocally correcting you if you start engaging in behavior I've determined is meant to be offensive in this context. You don't have to do that to gain some sort of perceived competitive advantage and being that intentionally alienating doesn't gain you any friends.

9. I guess that younger judges engage in more paradigmatic speaker point disclosure than I have in the past, so here are my thoughts: Historically, the arithmetic mean of my speaker points any given season has averaged out to about 27.9. I think that you merit a 27 if you've successfully used all of your speech time without committing round-losing tactical errors, and your points can move up from there by making gutsy strategic decisions, reading creative arguments, and using your best public speaking skills. Of course, your points can decline for, inter alia, wasting time, insulting your opponents, or using offensive language. I've "awarded" a loss-15 for a false allegation of an ethics violation and a loss-18 for a constructive full of seriously inappropriate invective. Don't make me go there...tackle the arguments in front of you head-on and without fear or favor and I can at least guarantee you that I'll evaluate the content you've presented fairly.

NOTES FOR LINCOLN-DOUGLAS!

PREF SHORTCUT: stock ≈ policy > K > framework > Tricks > Theory

I have historically spent much more time judging policy than LD and my specific topic knowledge is generally restricted to arguments I've helped my LD debaters prepare. In the context of most contemporary LD topics, which mostly encourage recycling arguments which have been floating around in policy debate for decades, this shouldn't affect you very much. With more traditionally phrased LD resolutions ("A just society ought to value X over Y"), this might direct your strategy more toward straight impact comparison than traditional V/C debating.

Also, my specific preferences about how _substantive_ argumentation should be conducted are far less set in stone than they would be in a policy debate. I've voted for everything from traditional value/criterion ACs to policy-style ACs with plan texts to fairly outright critical approaches...and, ab initio, I'm fine with more or less any substantive attempt by the negative to engage whatever form the AC takes, subject to the warnings about what constitutes a link outlined above. (Not talking about something is not a link). Engage your opponent's advocacy and engage the topic and you should be okay.

N.B.: All of the above comments apply only to _substantive_ argumentation. See the section on "theory" in in the overview above if you want to understand what I think about those "arguments," and square it. If winning that something your opponent said is "abusive" is a major part of your strategy, you're going to have to make some adjustments if you want to win in front of me. I can't guarantee that I'll fully understand the basis for your theory claims, and I tend to find theory responses with any degree of articulation more persuasive than the claim that your opponent should lose because of some arguably questionable practice, especially if whatever your opponent said was otherwise substantively responsive. I also tend to find "self-help checks abuse" responses issue-dispositive more often than not. That is to say, if there is something you could have done to prevent the impact to the alleged "abuse," and you failed to do it, any resulting "time skew," "strat skew," or adverse impact on your education is your own fault, and I don't think you should be rewarded with a ballot for helping to create the very condition you're complaining about.

I have voted on theory "arguments" unrelated to topicality in Lincoln-Douglas debates precisely zero times. Do you really think you're going to be the first to persuade me to pull the trigger?

Addendum: To quote my colleague Anthony Berryhill, with whom I paneled the final round of the Isidore Newman Round Robin: " "Tricks debate" isn't debate. Deliberate attempts to hide arguments, mislead your opponent, be unethical, lie...etc. to screw your opponent will be received very poorly. If you need tricks and lying to win, either "git' good" (as the gamers say) or prefer a different judge." I say: I would rather hear you go all-in on spark or counterintuitive internal link turns than be subjected to grandstanding about how your opponent "dropped" some "tricky" half-sentence theory or burden spike. If you think top-loading these sorts of "tricks" in lieu of properly developing substance in the first constructive is a good idea, you will be sorely disappointed with your speaker points and you will probably receive a helpful refresher on how I absolutely will not tolerate aggressive post-rounding. Everyone's value to life increases when you fill the room with your intelligence instead of filling it with your trickery.

AND SPECIFIC NOTES FOR PUBLIC FORUM

NB: After the latest timing disaster, in which a public forum round which was supposed to take 40 minutes took over two hours and wasted the valuable time of the panel, I am seriously considering imposing penalties on teams who make "off-time" requests for evidence or needless requests for original articles or who can't locate a piece of evidence requested by their opponents during crossfire. This type of behavior--which completely disregards the timing norms found in every other debate format--is going to kill this activity because no member of the "public" who has other places to be is interested in judging an event where this type of temporal elongation of rounds takes place.

NB: I actually don't know what "we outweigh on scope" is supposed to mean. I've had drilled into my head that there are four elements to impact calculus: timeframe, probability, magnitude, and hierarchy of values. I'd rather hear developed magnitude comparison (is it worse to cause a lot of damage to very few people or very little damage to a lot of people? This comes up most often in debates about agricultural subsidies of all things) than to hear offsetting, poorly warranted claims about "scope."

NB: In addition to my reflections about improper citation practices infra, I think that evidence should have proper tags. It's really difficult to flow you, or even to follow the travel of your constructive, when you have a bunch of two-sentence cards bleeding into each other without any transitions other than "Larry '21," "Jones '21," and "Anderson '21." I really would rather hear tag-cite-text than whatever you're doing. Thus: "Further, economic decline causes nuclear war. Mead '92" rather than "Mead '92 furthers...".

That said:

1. You should remember that, notwithstanding its pretensions to being for the "public," this is a debate event. Allowing it to degenerate into talking past each other with dueling oratories past the first pro and first con makes it more like a speech event than I would like, and practically forces me to inject my own thoughts on the merits of substantive arguments into my evaluative process. I can't guarantee that you'll like the results of that, so:

2. Ideally, the second pro/second con/summary stage of the debate will be devoted to engaging in substantive clash (per the activity guidelines, whether on the line-by-line or through introduction of competing principles, which one can envision as being somewhat similar to value clash in a traditional LD round if one wants an analogy) and the final foci will be devoted to resolving the substantive clash.

3. Please review the sections on "theory" in the policy and LD philosophies above. I'm not interested in listening to rule-lawyering about how fast your opponents are/whether or not it's "fair"/whether or not it's "public" for them to phrase an argument a certain way. I'm doubly unenthused about listening to theory "debates" where the team advancing the theory claim doesn't understand the basis for it.* These "debates" are painful enough to listen to in policy and LD, but they're even worse to suffer through in PF because there's less speech time during which to resolve them. Unless there's a written rule prohibiting them (e.g., actually advocating specific plan/counterplan texts), I presume that all arguments are theoretically legitimate, and you will be fighting an uphill battle you won't like trying to persuade me otherwise. You're better off sticking to substance (or, better yet, using your opposition's supposedly dubious stance to justify meting out some "abuse" of your own) than getting into a theoretical "debate" you simply won't have enough time to win, especially given my strong presumption against this style of "argumentation."

*I've heard this misunderstanding multiple times from PF debaters who should have known better: "The resolution isn't justified because some policy in the status quo will solve the 'pro' harms" is not, in fact, a counterplan. It's an inherency argument. There is no rule saying the "con" can't redeploy policy stock issues in an appropriately "public" fashion and I know with absolute metaphysical certitude that many of the initial framers of the public forum rules are big fans of this general school of argumentation.

4. If it's in the final focus, it should have been in the summary. I will patrol the second focus for new arguments. If it's in the summary and you want me to consider it in my decision, you'd better mention it in the final focus. It is definitely not my job to draw lines back to arguments for you. Your defense on the case flow is not "sticky," as some of my PF colleagues put it, as far as I'm concerned.

5. While I pay attention to crossfire, I don't flow it. It's not intended to be a period for initiating arguments, so if you want me to consider something that happened in crossfire in my decision, you have to mention it in your side's first subsequent speech.

6. You should cite authors by name. "Princeton" as an institution, doesn't conduct studies of issues that aren't solely internal Princeton matters, so you sound awful when you attribute your study about Security Council reform to "Princeton." "According to Professor Kuziemko of Princeton" (yes, she's a professor at Princeton who wrote the definitive study of the political economy of Security Council veto power) doesn't take much longer to say than "according to Princeton," and has the considerable advantage of accuracy. Also, I have no idea why you restrict this type of "citation" to Ivy League scholars. I've never heard an "according to Fordham" citation from any of you even though Professor Dayal of Fordham is a recognized expert on this issue, suggesting that you're only doing research you can use to lend nonexistent institutional credibility to your cases. Seriously, start citing evidence properly.

7. You all need to improve your time management skills and stop proliferating dead time if you'd like rounds to end at a civilized hour.

a. The extent to which PF debaters talk over the buzzer is unfortunate. When the speech time stops, that means that you stop speaking. "Finishing [your] sentence" does not mean going 45 seconds over time, which happens a lot. I will not flow anything you say after my timer goes off.

b. You people really need to streamline your "off-time" evidence exchanges. These are getting ridiculous and seem mostly like excuses for stealing prep time. I recently had to sit through a pre-crossfire set of requests for evidence which lasted for seven minutes. This is simply unacceptable. If you have your laptops with you, why not borrow a round-acceleration tactic from your sister formats and e-mail your speech documents to one another? Even doing this immediately after a speech would be much more efficient than the awkward fumbling around in which you usually engage.

c. This means that you should card evidence properly and not force your opponents to dig around a 25-page document for the section you've just summarized during unnecessary dead time. Your sister debate formats have had the "directly quoting sources" thing nailed dead to rights for decades. Why can't you do the same? Minimally, you should be able to produce the sections of articles you're purporting to summarize immediately when asked.

d. You don't need to negotiate who gets to question first in crossfire. I shouldn't have to waste precious seconds listening to you ask your opponents' permission to ask a question. It's simple to understand that the first-speaking team should always ask, and the second-speaking team always answer, the first question...and after that, you may dialogue.

e. If you're going to insist on giving an "off-time road map," it should take you no more than five seconds and be repeated no more than zero times. This is PF...do you seriously believe we can't keep track of TWO flows?

Was sich überhaupt sagen lässt, lässt sich klar sagen; und wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

Ben Cortez Hire

Last changed on Fri March 29, 2024 at 3:01 AM PDT

For Spring Break Special:

1. I have not judged in a while. I will most likely be able to keep up, but I may clear you.

2. I am apathetic what type of arguments you read, but I still deeply care about how you read the arguments you present. That means you can still read warming good, the Psychoanalysis K, three T shells etc, but you must explain and weigh those arguments.

bencortez92@gmail.com

Full judging record available here (Speaks + RFD)

Bio: Parli at UChicago. LD at Loyola '21. TOC (x2)

Top level: Tech > Truth. Strategic decision making > Pandering to me. Good tech will override any preference I have below. I'll only intervene if there are arguments of equal strength without weighing claims to resolve them. In these situations, I look to evidence first, then truth.

Misc: Sometimes emotive; always flowing (but not off the doc). Not a fan of one-line cheap shots. You have my consent to record, but ask others. I don't keep time. 100% fine with post-rounding (time permitting). Will only evaluate warrants highlighted.

Banned arguments: Death good, oppression good, and out of round things (besides disclosure)

Argument history: Affs defended a plan and mostly big impacts. Negs were almost strictly policy: sometimes 6+ off, sometimes 6 minutes of impact turns, but usually something in between. K when policy ground was scarce. Sometimes read wacky things like Trump good, consult UN, and riders.

DA: Terminal impact calc >> strength of link barring instruction. Topic disads are good. Politics and riders are fine, but I understand intrinsicness (Read This). Uniqueness puts the straight turn in a much better place. Zero risk on ridiculousness like 2014 midterms. I like it better when turns case is earlier. New 2AR and 2NR weighing always.

CP: Fine for anything with a net benefit. Competition and solvency are neg burdens. Lean neg on most theory. Lean aff on most competition (Read This). Judge kick requires instruction.

Case: Case debate, impact turns, presumption, analytics, and/or re-highlighting are appreciated. Read re-highlight for offense. Insert for defense. No preference between soft left and big stick.

T: Slightly lean against bare plural arguments for clash/predictability reasons. One aff a topic is a terrible model. Model/vision of the topic is more persuasive than "9 factorial affs" in a vacuum. A staunch believer that the neg needs definitions otherwise we get infinite T debates.

Theory: Save for literal double turns or technical drops from shells, not good for the condo 2AR. Easier to convince me the abuse is unreasonable rather than to use competing interpretations.

K: Better for teams that utilize K tricks than those that wax poetically about society. Read cap, security, complexity, abolition, and anti/post-humanism during my career. Roughly familiar with other meta lit and their answers. Imo neg needs either solves/turns case, framework, unsustainability/inevitability, or a robust external extinction impact to win. I'll probably vote aff on case o/w otherwise.

K affs: Skeptical about framework's ability to cause either genocide or grassroots movements. Affirmatives need a counter interpretation/model of debate. Negatives need to answer case. Affs gets perms.

LD specifics

Phil: Will evaluate fairly, but more experienced with the util side. Epistemic modesty makes sense.

Other Things: K Framework needs to be in the 1NC. Paragraph theory with education and fairness assumed is fine. Unqualified to judge (but will begrudgingly evaluate) tricks and frivolous theory.

Speaker points: Will not punish for humor, sarcasm, or minor cursing. Will disclose points if you ask. 28.8-7 breaking. Current [28.75] average.

Senae N Davidson Hire

Bryan Fu Hire

Last changed on Sun March 31, 2024 at 4:10 AM PDT

Hi!

Do whatever, Flow judge. perception probably matters more. If you want a prog round- read the LD paradigm below

If I'm judging you then you are probably a novice debater,

Ethos=Logos>Pathos

For Progressive

Quick Prefs (My confidence in my ability to judge these rounds)

Larp-1

Kant-1

T/Theory-1

K (cap, setcol, baudy etc.)- 1

Pure Phil (Heidegger, Intuitions etc.) -2

Tricks (warranted) -2

There's nothing I won't listen to but if I don't understand it, it's not going to be good for you.

Send cases if you are toc/natcirc-spreading and be clear when spreading- I can flow any speed just be clear

I will NOT vote for anything that says vote for [x] debater because they are [y] marginalized/minority population e.g. vote aff because I am Chinese

Reading Skep, Determinism, or Indexicals against a novice/trad debator will result in high speaks and me being in a good mood.

From William Trinh:

"I have massive respect for all the work people do for debates. I am tired of seeing teams not put their best foot forward because of judge dogmatism. Thus, I promise you I will do the best of my ability to evaluate every argument before me. This paradigm is more so to let you know what my understanding of arguments may be or what predispositions I might have, but I promise I will do my best to check them at the door. If your best 2AR is on trivialism, do it (just highlight the Kabay 08 card more smh)."

How many times I've sat: I

For Trad/Lay:

Things I look for

Clash (For more info look at Taite Kirkpatricks Paradigm
Understanding of what you are reading (Nobody wants a first-time novice reading Setcol)
Strategy (If you are clearly losing on an advantage then just kick out, don't try and win a losing battle)

PLEASE SIGNPOST AND BE ORGANIZED

Feel free to ask any question about my paradigm before the round starts-if you don't know what it is: it probably doesn't apply to you

Appeals to 'think of your children' or 'do it for the/your children' = +.5 speaker points

30 speaks

-if you tell me a joke that makes me laugh-if it doesn't then your speaks are capped at 29

-find a smart way to include bears (includes pandas), penguins, or any Winnie the Pooh character

-30 spksth but only if there's a good warrant

25>

-You are morally repugnant in round (-isms, condescending, misogynistic, etc.)

-your evidence is 1] not cut correctly, 2]not cited correctly, 3] is fake, 4] miscut

I will check so don't try

-card clipping

If you have any questions feel free to ask. Post Round me all you want.

Other than that, Good Luck Have Fun.

Ella Fulkerson Hire

Emilio Garza Hire

Last changed on Sat March 30, 2024 at 5:05 AM CDT

hi i’m emilio clear springs 25’

add 2 chain pls emiliogarza525@gmail.com

ive done circuit ld + policy and have made it to bid rounds / got speaker points in both

my ideological standing have changed since switching over to policy this last year

Quick Prefs

K - 1 (Setcol, Futurism(s), Pessimism(s), Psycho, Cap, Etc)

Larp - 1

TFW - 1

Theory - 2 (Condo, PICS Bad, just not frivolous)

K POMO - 2 (Baudy, Other white pomo men)

Phil + Tricks - 4/Strike (k/identity tricks 2) - i’ll try i’ll be lost

K- Favorite arg on aff and neg - in 3 years only like 2 of my 2nrs (in both policy and ld) wernt setcol - winning TOP is key - yes you can kick the alt if u r winning framing + links - link work is lacking in most teams i prefer a collapse on 1/2 links you are winning in the 2nr - k v k is my favorite but can get messy pls just stick to your order

for larper - yes i will vote on extinction o/w - ontology false etc if won - ive had enough debates to know when someone is winning - go for link turn / fiat good interps best strat probably easiest to win

for non black pessimism - it is weird and odd i’ll vote for you but probably turned by like just any competition ivi or most pess authors work - best staying away ill lower speaks

Larp- so fun, switching to policy i can enjoy a good larp debate - pls weigh - plank counterplans with more than 3 planks prob are abusive but i can be persuaded otherwise! also more than 6 condo is probably abusive and will have a harder time changing my mind! - aspec is boring but ill vote on it

Theory- enjoy a good theory debate that’s not frivolous (spec etc) - pls weigh standards - more open to non black disclosure practices but anything is up for debate - also policy t debates r fun be as nit picky as u want - if u pull it off i’ll give goood speaks

TFW - appreciate tfw teams that aren’t racist/sexist etc… tfw is fun answer impact turns disads and have a clear ballot story!!! - tvas are best strat along with tfw tricks (limits da, ballot pic hidden inside, etc)

Speaks- If u annoy me u will get low speaks ( condescending, etc) but other than that i’ll give good speaks i start out at 28.5 go up and down - speaks theory is no - be clear pls….. i can handle clear speak not jumble your speaks will show it - love a good low point win

Daniel Gibson Hire

Last changed on Wed April 3, 2024 at 10:57 AM CDT

Quals are overrated, post round if you want but I can't guarantee you will get the result you want

Email is dgibson7227@gmail.com

Add me to the email chain

If I'm not flowing its not because I've already submitted my ballot its because the way I compete and judge is rlly weird with regards to flowing, I find that most of the time rounds aren't as intricate as a flow would require, but I still have a pretty good memory so don't cap in the 2AR, I prob won't buy it. I do flow to an extent most of the time tho.

https://discord.gg/MGZ6wD4rz6 join this for independent resources. If you don't have access to debatedrills or something similar or your school gives you negative support you are also cool. also if ur a speech kid who wants to learn debate go for it.

Deleted my old paradigm because it was too much yapping

tldr I will vote on literally any argument (emphasis on argument) that is won, I dont care about pf or traditional circuit rules you can read counterplans on me I dont care about the NSDA, card speed analytics are fine, pref me 1 for anything but trad in which case pref me 2, my defaults are intentionally weird because judge adaptation is an underutilized skill
Defaults (a lot):
Presumption goes to the team with a worse competitive record (think chess elo)
Permissibility defaults to presumption unless you tell me otherwise
I don't default to any paradigm issues, shells without them die
Theory vs truth testing flips theory unless otherwise argued (literally any weighing)
Ks are a disad to phil and nothing more if they critique the plan, if they critique an element of the debate space they uplayer like normal
Fiat is good
Role of the ballot is to vote for the team with arguments left on the flow, if both teams meet its TT
Conditionality is good for any #
Severance is good for any #
Plan inclusive [x] is good
Condo planks are good
Combo shells are good
Insert argument style here is good

Speaks start at your tournament average, if speaks aren't disclosed or it is r1 I start at 28.5

Obiora Goodluck Hire

Sanvi Gudaru Hire

Maeve Keone Hall Hire

Last changed on Tue March 5, 2024 at 12:36 PM MDT

Experience: I competed in every debate event, as well as most speech events over the course of 3 years. I qualified to Nationals twice as well. I'm currently an active NSDA Alumni and I offer hired judging for various schools, mostly in Utah.

General for Speech Events
I will be timing you, but you are also free to time yourself when appropriate. I dislike when speakers try to fill all the time by repeating themselves or talking in circles. Quality over quantity.
If you are double entered, I will alter the speaking order if necessary to make sure you can give both speeches timely. Please speak up if you need this, since Tabroom doesn't always tell me.

General for all Debate Events:

If evidence asked for in-round does not exist or is being blatantly misused, I will not vote for you. If there are claims of evidence being misread or used in an abusive way, I will ask to look at it myself. Most importantly, looking at evidence counts as part of your prep time, unless it gets into rule-breaking disputes.

I like seeing assertiveness during cross, but don't be over the top. A good cross to me looks like advancing a conversation and making points, not just clarifying. If your opponent asks a reasonable question and you are being intentionally vague with your answers or stalling the clock, I will count it against you. Please also look at me and not your opponent as much as possible.

I am perfectly okay with progressive debate (kritiks, philosophy, plans, counter-plans, etc) and know how to judge it, but I am strict with the rulebook on how/when it can be used.

If you plan on spreading, please have your cases ready to share with your opponent(s) or me as necessary.

Email for evidence/case sharing: maeve.k.hall@gmail.com

Lincoln-Douglas:

I weigh most on the Value/criterion debate. If I see it from one debater and not at all from another, my ballot is easy to write. If neither engages, I will have a hard time picking a winner. If both engage, then we all have a fun round.

I do believe having a Value/criterion is necessary. If you don't provide a framework, it's really hard for me to vote for you. If you're unprepared or wanted to do that level of progressive debate, I'm sorry.

Policy:

Please ask for specifics in round

benjamin hoover Hire

Last changed on Mon May 6, 2024 at 5:34 AM CDT

Wiki links to see what I'm familiar w running and going for:

Senior year: https://opencaselist.com/hsld23/LincolnEast/BeHo

Junior year: https://opencaselist.com/hsld22/LincolnEast/BeHo

Background

I debated at Lincoln East High School debating in PF as a freshman then LD for the rest.

I've consistently broken at and won local and nat circuit tournaments, won various local tournaments, been in late out rounds / finals of various nat circuit tournaments as well as been in top speaker positions, qualified to TOC twice, state finalist my junior year, Debate / District Student of the Year recipient my senior year, ranked No. 1 in the state and state champion my senior year.

Competed at the TOC in LD my junior and senior year with 4 career bids

I'm a flex debater who read mostly K's with a little larping. I've read everything from tricks to theory to phil etc. I run whatever so I'm cool with whatever - don't adapt to me my preferences aren't that serious just run what you're good at so I can judge a good debate

some people who have influenced me / the way I view debate: Amanda Ciocca, Elijah Smith, Joel Henson, Brixz Gonzaba, John Holen, Rose Lampman, Jesse Nguyen, Matthew Gruhn, David Hererra, Vaish, other teammates and coaches

I think debate is a game. Set rules and norms through tricks and theory but don't be morally repugnant, I won't buy any "-ism is good" or "death good" stuff and be a nice person

TLDR

tech > truth (however, in a K round I'll buy truth > tech if it's articulated with a decent threshold. I love truth over tech v tricks debates as long as there's still some lbl engagement)

k / k aff - 1 (esp performance or very intricate / creative critiques)

Theory - 1 (hidden / "extempted" or off the doc shells are perfectly fine, I read them and I'm ok w that but if they ask for the interp send it)

tricks - 2 to 3 (I'd prefer to see a few hidden things, have an out that isn't just tricks. I don't like eval after as your SOLE spike but flow checks are legit I guess so I'll vote on it. I want either 5 spikes or 50 spikes and not a silly in between)

Phil* - 1 to 3 (check longer section)

Larp** - 2 to 3 (check longer section)

do what you want as long as it's not problematic

Judging note

Something I've realized over my career is that a lot of judges simply do not put in the effort or care that students deserve. I've encountered a few judges who believe that, just because they're a judge, they are always right. I know that as a judge I can make wrong decisions and I am not above every student and I do not inherently know more than every debater, which is a false assumption a lot of judges seem to have. Because of this, It's my goal to be the best judge I can for you in this round and future rounds. I'm fine with being post rounded and I understand why it happens. If it gets too disrespectful and not about the contents of the debate anymore I will move on from it. However, I understand why important rounds like bubbles or bids can harbor high emotions that result in post rounding and I will try my best to extensively explain every decision I make in a debate. This is not me telling you you're instantly right because you disagree with me, but I will try my best to understand why you believe an argument should've been evaluated differently and explain why I didn't see it that way.

General beliefs / random thoughts

I think debate is a game but how we play it matters. I love performance debate and 4th wall type Kritiks. I have read a very wide variety of performance from playing chicana punk rock to narratives and poetry. I believe that as students we do internalize what we read and hear and that means I love to see debates that say the way we engage in debates matters. This can be non-T k affs, pre fiat under a topical left aff, or k's that indict aff reps and performativity. That being said, try to have a vision of what MATERIALLY changes from the education and rotb/alt you provide because I like 1AR materialism indicts.

That being said I do also enjoy full game type debates (i.e. tricks v tricks, auto negate/aff triggers, etc) and will not complain about having to judge them. do what you enjoy cause that's all that really matters tbh. Just do what you do and do it well. I'll adapt to you, don't adapt to me.

I think "hack for me bc x" or "hack for the X debater" are fine and I read them. The issue is you need to win a theory of power or causal explanation as to why you should be hacked for. This functionally means it's not hacking and is just an up layered reason to promote the team. This means that it comes second to procedurals (unless you're winning the layering debate i.e. a K aff vs T shell where you're winning impact turns / that the aff uplayers) I will vote for it given you win the theory of power / SUBSTANTIVE reason as to why you should be hacked for not just "bc I'm x"

K's

k v k debate is my favorite. I'm good for literally any lit base BUT you need to do a good job explaining the in round implications of the K bc I won't intervene for you. I'm good with topic links, rep links, word links, etc. any link is a good link BUT long link walls are good. I personally love to see the one off K Strat and that's what I read mostly. if u want alt as floating PIK you need to do the work to explain why you can and why I vote for that. I like the Strat though. also I love performative links being made and brought up in cx or rebuttals. Kick the K properly bc perm on an improper 2nr that goes for something else without kicking the K right is residual offense for the aff that can be weighed against the other off's if they extend the perm. I'm a big fan of in depth Kritiks, esoteric lit bases, unique alts, do literally anything you want to I love seeing uncommon Kritiks. Also, literature backed K tricks are broken and I will vote for them.

List of K's I've read or understand: Academy K, Anthro, Abolition, Absurdism, Activism games, Afropess, Afrofuturism, Beller, Biopolitics, Benatar, Bataille, Borderlands (favorite), Baudrillard, Cybernetics, Cruel Op, Chicana futurism / pessimism, capitalism (Pomo, racial, general), Deleuze (& Guattari), Dark Deleuze, Disability, Eco-anarchy, Enlightenment Phil, Extinction reps, Foucault, Geopolitics, Hardt and Negri, Hoofd, intersectional Fem, Moten and Harney, Neoliberalism, Necropolitics, OOO, Orientalism, Psycho (berlant, Lacan, McGowan) Queer pess, queer aztec worlding, Rights, Saldanha, Speed K, Statism, Suffering reps, Set Col, Security, Surveillance, Semiocap, Terror talk, War metaphors, Western academics, Zizek and probably more that I can't remember.

DA's

I'd rather see disads on case instead of as an off position just because I think it's more strategic unless you have a really good case neg to the aff but you do you. if disads are your Strat I'm down to watch it just really implicate the scenario out and do good metaweighing. I also like seeing K links as disads either as their own off or as DA's on case page. I commonly read opacity or race/gender k links as a disad vs k affs and would love to judge that type of round. just explain the links really well and why I care. (goat 1NC vs K affs is 2 off, K then opacity DA) condo reps are fine you can read a K that indicts extinction but also read a DA that impacts to extinction on case or as an off. I evaluate that as a turn to the aff and not a perfcon or double bind but you can maybe convince me that it is.

CP's

I have a low threshold for 1AR theory VS CCPs, PCPs, and DCPs if the aff says durable fiat / normal means would include the CP method BUT if you say why they can't do that (ground, clash, neg choice, etc) in the 1NC I'll probably lean neg on the fact aff needs to contest the CP method (esp if normal means wasn't specced in cx or 1ac) Generally love CP's though and I'll evaluate no card / one card CP's if they're good. Also I'll judge kick if you tell me. towards the end of my career I read more advantage CP's and am a big fan of an advantage CP versus K affs / Topical k affs

PIC/K's

go for it same as above cp stuff just debate how you want and do it well. I do want a good perm block in the 1NC though or else I will buy 1AR "perm blocks should've been in 1NC" args I won't buy that but still read a pre-empt. Word PIKS are less convincing to me despite that I read them bc it's hard to explain the PIK without linking yourself but that doesn't mean I won't vote on a well written word PIK. overall just win your argument I'd rather see it as an ethos push as a disad to their rhetoric that turns their assumptions. I have a medium-high threshold for pics because most can just be abusive analytics. However, I have a low threshold for analytic pics against a K aff because i think if they arbitrarily defend non topical to a point that's not even directionally topical than you can pic out of a part of the aff and i'll vote on it (just win some form of competition through like process or thesis indicts or a disad on case outweighing the world of the perm)

Theory

I don't care whether the interp is positively worded or negatively worded but a + c/I vs your - interp will be more convincing. I'm cool with frivolous theory and 1AR restarting. just do good. I love 1AR restarts. If you're larping against the K and are getting slaughtered or don't have the right blocks, just restart. I think the 1AR gets one shell without an underview in the 1AC but the 2nr will have a lower threshold for responding to it.

Defaults with theory:

DTD, no RVI (yes impact turns, no rvi even if 1ar restarts), competing interps, but all these can be changed if u tell me to.

no preference in fairness over education but fairness is I/L to edu. I like a good standards debate. 2n (or 2AR if 1AR theory) should be on ONE standard that can be implicated out to other standards. i.e. "I'm going for limits" then impact it out to clash

c/I "ill defend the violation" is fine with me. especially bc against frivolous neg worded interps it's just a good Strat.

I do think fairness will win most the time over education against k affs or weird neg strats.

Tricks

I used to hate them, now I don't and I sometimes read them. I love a good tricks aff BUT the more abusive you are the more I'll love to see a one off K against the aff and it'll be really hard slightly harder for you to win. if the 1NC makes good indicts of reps / tricks / TT model of debate then I'll allow grouping instead of LBL (even if they drop your goofy "must lbl" trick) ONLY if they answer the "must lbl" spike

tricks are a bad model of debate so the K vs them is basically hacking BUT I do also agree that if they drop too much stuff you can win the tricks v K debate with a good 2AR.

more abuse = lower threshold (hiding spikes, "what's an a priori?", "extempted" off the doc spikes in the 1AC, etc)

tricks v tricks debates are cool though. tricks v larp w things like definitional a priori's or log con are also fun. I love Phil tricks and hijacks so read those if ur good at it.

its fine if you say "What's an a priori" one time just to troll idrc

Phil

Mostly read butler, Pettit, Kant, emotivism, determinism, internalism, paradoxes, various hijacks, levinas, these are all ones. etc. reallllyyyy dense Phil that isn't one of the previous will probably require more work for you to explain BUT I'll try my best and am very willing to watch that debate.

* notes

*The Phil I'd prefer to see is Hijacks, Kant, Determinism, Skep, or tricksy type Phil, 4-5 for contracts, levinas, etc.

**I can judge a full larp debate, it'll just bore me and I'm probably not the best for it. a solid counterplan + T versus the plan aff is a good strategy in front of me. plz read Kritik against the plan <3, LD does not require a plan but I'm impartial, if they want to defend the political then I'll buy politics bad links p easily to things like queer pess etc. I will still vote on T-implementation though.

Speaks

I care more about strategy and tech of your speech over clarity. If your spreading is insanely unclear though your speaks will suffer. I disclose speaks and will general give 29+ worst you'll get with horrid spreading is like a 28.5 if you lose 29 if you win

Aman Jha Hire

Catherine Ji Hire

Sameer Kandra Hire

Last changed on Sat March 30, 2024 at 7:45 AM EDT

To be added in 2024

email: sameerkandra@bernardsboe.com

please use that email if there is an email chain

for the spring break tournament: first time judging potential circuit rounds, i think i should be good for y'all but sorry if i make any bad decisions. PLEASE TURN ON YOUR CAMERAS.

TL;DR: I will evaluate anything when explained well, so do good judge instruction, make the round accessible, and simply make the round as easy for me to evaluate as you can

2 Year LD Varsity Debater from Ridge High School. openCaselist - HS LD 2023-24. check out my wiki to see what i read; I'm mainly a K debater

Speaker Points: you will get 27 at a minimum unless you're racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, etc. i will not lower speaks based on content but may increase based on content if it's fun or anything

<27 - clipping, offensiveness, etc.

27 - 28 - below average

28 - 28.9 - average

29 - 29.5 - good, breaking probably

29.5 - 30 - really good, late out-rounds, bid, etc.

Tech > Truth

LD:

in terms of how you should do prefs:

K debate, I love K v K, K v Policy, and K v Phil
LARP/T/Theory
Phil (I am not familiar with a lot of lit as of right now, but Kant and simpler phil, go for it)
Tricks
Lay/Trad (totally fine with evaluating this but I find it quite boring)

I will give you the benefit of the doubt if you end up spreading against a trad opponent on the aff, but try to make it accessible. if it's varsity, it's your call

Spreading is good - I understand when people have issues with auditory processing, but in all other cases, spreading is good.

please don't be that person who reads spreading consent to get a cheap ballot

Defaults

I will default to these in round unless told not to.

CI > Reasonability, DTD, No RVIs.

Accessibility > T > Theory > Reps Args > Substance

Permissibility affirms, presumption negates

I absolutely love Ks and have read these since I got into circuit debate; I recommend you be familiar with your Ks/are able to clearly articulate your links. I will not vote on someone who's unfamiliar with their K, so you should have clean extensions if you want to win with high speaks. As for now, I am familiar with Cap, Security, Settler Colonialism, Orientalism, Agamben, Hardt & Negri, Fanon, Puar, Lacan, Wilderson, Edelman, Warren, Stanley, Mollow, Weheliye, Juarez, etc. I am not FULLY familiar with denser Ks that aren't on that list, but even for complicated Ks that are there, I recommend you speak about it in a less abstruse manner than you would with a more experienced judge.

K v K

TL;DR - explain the links/explain why you don't link very well and youl'll be good

As someone who's been in these debates a lot, I find it's very hard for judges to evaluate these types of debates sometimes. For that reason, I do grant method perms most of the time and these debates mainly come down as to whether I get good enough link explanation and proof that the aff's epistemology/post-aff is bad.

LARP

I think LARP is a great style of debate and I usually am fine with the bare minimum for an extinction scenarios. interesting/new DAs/Advantages that catch me off guard will make the round more fun, so if you're having a LARP v LARP debate, don't make it boring please. debaters should do all the simple stuff like extensions, good weighing, internal link work, etc. I will default to Util if nobody reads a framework, but I'd highly prefer that the 1AC do read one, or at least the 1NC. In terms of things like K v Larp, I've always been on the K side of these types of debates so I highly recommend you become extremely familiar on why your engagement with debate is a good style relative to the K; otherwise I will vote on things like accessibility and the bare minimum arguments like extinction reps bad. Be able to justify your model, and you will win

T/Theory

TL;DR: good judge instruction :)

T/Theory is definitely interesting, and a good T debate can be spicy and interesting, so I am always down to watch that. I'm fine with pretty much any shells, including friv theory, but if you're reading that against an opponent who clearly has no idea what they're doing, I will drop your speaks. I don't like to evaluate friv theory above other things, so if people give a simple intuitive answer, I will most of the time be averse to voting on those theory shells. In these debates though, I really want debaters to collapse and weigh on standards - too often I've debated against people who've gone for T but haven't done a correct collapse or apply it to the case enough. In debates like T Fwk or T - Institutional Action, I want to see things like why the TVA is good for the K Aff, or why something like predictable limits is key in the context of their aff. For other T shells, like substantial, or definitions, just do the same collapsing and make it easy for me, and same goes for theory. I like to hear a coherent abuse story and will likely prefer debaters who do that because I'd like to intervene as little as possible.

Phil

I am truly unfamiliar with a lot a Phil, so there's not much for me to say here. Just err on the side of overexplaining with me, and you should be fine.

Tricks

Contrary to a lot of judges, I do think good tricks debates can happen. I really don't like tricks, and not because I dropped to them (yes i did), but because I believe that substantively they're just not great arguments for debate. That said, as I am tech > truth, I will evaluate these in any round ASIDE FROM evaluate after x speech. If you're reading tricks, try to be intuitive and extend them well; otherwise I will doc your speaks and there's a high chance I won't vote on them. I am completely open to theory for tricks bad or anything of the sort, so feel free to run that in front of me as an easy out in front of tricks debaters. Also, I will not flow undisclosed tricks. Do not try to extemp tricks while you are going 450 WPM in your 1AC.

K Affs/Soft Left

This is very similar to Ks; I'm very open to evaluating K affs and I think that K affs can be really fun if explained and done well. I almost always went for K affs in my years debating, so you can definitely feel free to read any sort of K aff in front of me. Ks can have less of a standard for solvency if you go for things like reps, but I think that these are the most fun affs to evaluate. I'm very open to interesting ROB extrapolations, integrating different literature bases into your aff, and more. I think K debaters should be intuitive when answering things like DAs or other Ks, because often times DAs, CPs, and other things that 'solve the aff' can be outframed via the ROB. Other Ks usually don't link in, so try to easily explain why you don't.

Non T Affs

Explain why you're Non-T if you're not, and I'm totally fine with evaluating these affs. I personally haven't gone for any yet, but I've gone against them and they definitely can create some fun and interesting debates.

net benefit and we're good, perm has to justify a reason why the CP and the aff is net better than either world for advantage CPs

Policy Debate: I am fine with anything in policy, be fluent of your case if you are spreading is pretty much it. same as LD paradigm for the rest

PF: not really sure what the pf meta is looking like and probably won't ever judge this but if i do, just same as LD paradigm

Theo Khakoo Hire

Last changed on Sat March 30, 2024 at 11:01 PM CEST

Hey, my name's Theo. I compete on the TOC, TFA, NSDA and UIL circuits. I state qualed and Nats qualed.

---Initial DOs and DONTs
-yes i want to be on the chain.theokhakoo2@gmail.com
-please don't call me judge, call me Theo.
-i start your speaks at 28.5 and move up/down accordingly, ill prob give higher speaks than most judges
-be nice! don't say racist, homophobic, etc. stuff
-i do not care what you run. death good is fine, pomo is fine, crazy procedurals is fine.
-***FRIENDLY BANTER IS HILARIOUS IF YOU'RE GOOD AT IT. I WILL MEGA-BOOST YOUR SPEAKS IF YOU'RE FUNNY. BUT... play stupid games win stupid prizes.***

Pref cheat-sheet (mainly a LD debater in HS but did cross over once or twice)---

Phil - 1

K/Kaffs - 1

Policy - 2

Trix - 3

TLDR---
Tab---i'll evaluate anything in front of me. i've run anything from crazy baudy kaffs to the politics DA, so i have experience with everything.
Tech > Truth---pretty self explanatory. if it's a bad argument, it's still an argument
Ks & Kaffs---because this is literally like the only thing that matters---idc if you read a k, i was a k debater in highschool and have interacted with pretty much every bit of literature on the internet. kaffs should probably relate to the topic, but tbh idc so do whatever. I really enjoy pomo k's as well.
Speed---don't care as long as i can hear your tags well enough and semi-hear the body. i'll say clear 3 times before i stop flowing.

Framework---procedural fairness >= clash > skills > "wahhhh they ran k aff vote neg" fairness. been in >50 of these debates so ill know what you're doing. genuinely though if ur hitting a recycled k aff dont even go for fw.
Unpopular opinion: TVAs are almost never topical and are the worst arguments to go for even if they are topical. If there is one argument I will intervene and not vote for its probably a bad TVA (still answer it tho if ur aff). Switch side is 999/1000 times gonna be the right thing to go for.

Theory---I default to rejecting the argument unless told otherwise. Any type of procedural is cool, resolutional or not. Condo should probably take up more than 2 minutes of the 1AR.

Topicality---default to competing interps. Reasonability is true, but not a good standard most likely. AFF/NEG ground >>>>>>> predictability.

Counterplans---anything's good. Judge kicking literally does not matter and never will, but if you tell me to I guess I will unless told otherwise? Every type of counterplan I default NEG on theory except word PICs. Counterplan's should compete and I have a high bar evaluating competition for NEG teams.

Disads---good. make sure to weigh. the rider DA is the only weird one, so make sure to justify why rider DAs are good in your overview prob.

Thulani Khumalo Hire

Last changed on Sun January 21, 2024 at 10:25 AM CDT

This is my paradigm; I will explain how I approach judging in a FAQ format. Hopefully, it's clear. If you have any questions, email me: khumalothulani.r@gmail.com

What is my experience level?

Here are my judging qualifications:

2022: Implicit Bias - Project Implicit, USA

2022: Cultural Competency course - National Speech and Debate Association, USA

2022: Adjudicating Speech and Debate – National Speech and Debate Association, USA

2022: Protecting Students from Abuse - US Centre for Safesport, USA

You can find my certificates here (Google Drive):

I have been judging for two years now, since 2022, and have judged about 22 tournaments (I have no idea how many flights but probably hundreds lol). I have experience in most formats: LD, PF, WSD, BP, AP, Congress, SPAR, Impromptu, Policy, and even the rare ones like Big Questions and Extemporaneous. I have some experience in oratory speeches like DUO. Yes and many rare debates (for example, one time I did a radio debate where the speakers were performing as radio announcers, giving local news, sports, etc, with 1950-type voices-- it was a pretty cool experience :)).

2 2. What are my preferences as they relate to your rate of delivery and use of jargon or technical language?

I pretty much understand complex English words. Having studied engineering in college, it's pretty much a given that I understand most of the stuff and words that may be deemed complicated. However, debate is an Art of Convincing and Converting, so don't try to use too much jargon like a lawyer (or a surgeon lol), as it might end up confusing your opponents and me.

Rate of Delivery: Any delivery pacing is welcome. Generally, I prefer a medium pace; a slow pace is okay, too, if you can explain your contentions adequately in the given time. Medium or conversational pacing gets the point across really well. When it comes to fast pace, don't speak in a monotonous way like you are reading..(approach your speech as if you are trying to convince me to follow your case), and don't rush too much: take your time; it's your moment, be free. I don't have any difficulties understanding fast-paced deliveries; however, during the speech, you must factor in the time for me to process the information you say. But remember, it is not only me; your opponents must also understand what you are saying. This means, you really don't need to have too many contentions to be convincing (Quality over quantity).

33. How do I take notes during the round?

I am a writer, and there is no stopping my pen. First, you have to know that during your contentions, I basically write down all your points, examples, and details. I keep my notes detailed so that it's easy to recall and give a balanced assessment. However, I highlight your major contentions so that I get an appreciation of your overall message. This is important in that, usually during questioning, there usually are nuanced questions coming from the other side relating to minor arguments, such as an example that was not stressed upon. Picking all that up is important so that I don’t forget or get surprised when someone asks a question on a minor point.

4. Do I value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Are there certain delivery styles that are more persuasive to me?

Arguments and style are both important to me. Generally, I give Arguments 70% and style 30%. When I rate every debate, there is an argumentative section and a performative section that is essentially style and delivery. For me to give you the round, you have to provide me with convincing and logical arguments supported by examples/exhibitions (argument). Then there is style: After every debate, I always emphasise how important a structured speech is. There must be a flow to your case. Start by saying something out of the box to raise my interest (Give an exciting hook, show me how smart you are); after you introduce the topic, state your major contentions, then explain them, giving evidence. Don’t give too much proof because you need time to explain to me, as if I am a layman, what it all means and the impacts of an action. Then, as you conclude, give a summary (remind me of the journey of the speech). This delivery style is tried and tested, However, if you think you have your own style that will convince me, go for it. You can trust me when I say to you that I pay a lot of attention to detail.

45. What are the specific criteria I consider when assessing a debate?

1. Clarity: outline your key contentions early on in the debate, and use these to link your argumentation for consistency and clear logical flow.

2. Rebuttal: be genuine with engaging matters from the other side. Make strategic concessions while showing me how your side solves the problems you illuminate from the other side. Avoid making claims without justifying why they are valid or essential to the debate and at what point they engage with the other teams' arguments.

3. Conclusions: When deciding on a winner, I use the key clashes that came out in the debate regarding the strength of weighing and justification. This means, as debaters, you need to prove to me why you win certain clashes and why those clashes are the most important in the debate. That is to say, mechanise each of your claims (give multiple reasons to support them) as you make them make it easier to weigh clashes at the end of the debate.

4. Coherency. Make sure your delivery is coherent. The perk of writing stuff down is you can catch a lot of mistakes, so make sure everything tallies up.

56. If you have judged before, how would I describe the arguments I found most persuasive in previous debate rounds?

Essentially, the most compelling arguments are the most well-explained, and the impacts of those arguments are well-explained and logical. Try not to brush things off, manage your time wisely, and don’t come with a lot of contentions…3 or 4 are usually enough (depending on the debate format); explain well, give proofs, and give impacts.

67. What expectations do you have for debaters’ in-round conduct?

In the round, everyone is EQUAL, and everyone is free to express themselves. It’s a safe space for everyone. Be kind to one another, and that means no bullying or targeting of any sort.

78. Feedback. I will give verbal feedback if the tournament allows, disclosing who has won and why. I will also write feedback on Tabroom for every individual. My job is to make sure that you learn from the debate experience and take something positive.

89. Time: I prefer that the speakers have time clocks with them (this won't lose you marks, lol). I prefer the round to flow naturally without my continual interruption, interjecting here and there (for example, you: “Judge Ready?”— Me: “Ready”) if there is something to be said.

Cheers!

Aiden Kim Hire

Last changed on Fri May 3, 2024 at 7:12 AM PDT

Update for MSTOC: Tricks and theory tend to be even more of a cheapshot strategy against people who don't know what they are. I'm uninterested in judging you go for eval vs a lay debater. Make real arguments, please.

Sage Oak '24

Cal Berkeley '26

kritiksarecheating@gmail.com

I'm agnostic about being on the chain. I flow without the doc.

I. Basics

None of us had to be here at 8 am on a weekend. I will give my full attention to whatever you have to say, whether that's the death K, Baudrillard, or the rider DA. Likewise, I expect to you to treat your opponent with respect.

"That means I will not be half-flowing speeches while texting friends, I will not be checking Twitter or spacing out during CX, I will not "rep out", and I will not rush my decision to get back to my own team faster" - pat

I flow on my laptop, but will not have other tabs open.

II. Ground rules

Nothing you do or say will change these factors in my decision calculus.

A. Debate is a game that requires 1 winner and 1 loser.

B. Do not misgender people. This is non-negotiable.

C. Do not be racist, sexist, etc.

D. Ad homs will not earn you the ballot. They will earn you 25 speaks. "entirely uninterested in adjudicating the character of minors i don't know" - pat.

E. The affirmative speaks first and last and thus has the burden of positive proof. The negative speaks second and thus has the burden of rejoining the aff.

F. Speech times. 6-7-4-6-3. These do not change.

G. If an accusation of clipping or an ev ethics violation are alleged and the round is explicitly staked, I will stop the debate and decide internally whether the accusations are true or false. The winner gets a W29, the loser an L20.

III. Thoughts on specific arguments

A. Kritik/K affs

I was involved in a substantial portion of these debates in high school. I am better for K debaters that are highly technical, and make arguments that seek to rejoin the plan. I am worse for K debaters that rely on fanciful rhetoric, grandstanding, and edgy performances to win.

Link turns case and K impact turns it are arguments that are criminally underutilized in LD. I'm increasingly frustrated with the amount of time LD K debaters spend grandstanding instead of explaining their theory of power or how the link indicts the 1AC. This is probably due to the way that judging traditionally considered "good for the K" has evolved, especially on the East Coast. Nonetheless, explaining why the link interferes with 1AC solvency makes the 3 minute 2AR on plan focus and extinction outweighs far harder to give, albeit still convincing.

People should impact turn Ks more. Every K probably thinks heg and cap are bad (or they probably don't solve the link). Although the LD 1AR is too short to read some of the better heg cards, impact turns as a component of offense against Ks other than cap should definitely become a more substantive part of the meta.

I lean slightly neg on T-framework. I am persuaded by the idea that debates over a topical plan are good, but can be convinced to vote the other way. Impact turning framework is likely more convincing than a counterinterpretation that purports to solve the negative's limits offense.

B. Disads

I largely went for these negating. 2NRs on DA/case should be short on internal link explanation/overviews, heavy on turns-case analysis. Two sentences is a sufficiency. You should also weigh. Weighing is good and important. Explain why your offense comes before theirs.

Meta-weighing is also good and criminally underutilized - a lot of debaters just assert that timeframe comes before magnitude, or vice versa, without a warrant. "Intervening actors check" is not an argument.

Evidence quality matters, but sometimes analytics are better than evidence. Card quality in LD is atrocious - sometimes, instead of reading your russia D from 2012, you'd just be better off making analytic arguments about how Ukraine proves Russia's washed. It takes less time too.

Uniqueness controls the direction of the link. If there is a 50% chance that Ukraine aid passes in the world of the plan, but a 0% chance that it passes in the world of the DA, I vote aff.This isn't to say that the link CANNOT control the direction of uniqueness, but that the inverse is generally true for most disads (especially politics, dipcap, etc).

This should also highlight the importance of cutting updates to internal link ev and uniqueness. I don't want to judge the farm bill DA with uniqueness from 2020. That passed a year ago. Cmon guys.

C. Counterplans

Dense counterplan competition throwdowns were the debates I was least involved in and, by extension, the debates I am the least comfortable with judging. That said, I should be relatively okay for these rounds.

Debaters should think a lot more about the quality of evidence for a lot of process CPs. The authors of a lot of these articles are writing in the context of legal hypotheticals and often hasten to explain that anybody who tried these things in the real world would be patently insane. Letting the solicitor general, courts, or whatever make decisions about how the military works or whether UBI should be implemented would probably collapse the entire US government and it's legal, institutional, and historical legitimacy. Aff teams should say these things more.

Function > text. I'm not sure why changing "ought" to "should" means that the counterplan competes. This change in wording probably doesn't affect whether or not the counterplan could be implemented in the world of the aff. I think the most persuasive argument for textual competition is that it's most consistent with the legal process, but this seems to be fallacious. While legal interpretation certainly places an emphasis on semantics, it is generally recognized that the functional effect of the law should supersede quibbles over it's wording.

Likewise, I'm not persuaded by textual nonintrinsicness as a check on full intrinsic permutations. Functional competition makes a lot more sense to me in a purely logical sense - if the counterplan cannot occur in the world of the aff, it likely competes.

Advantage counterplans are good, but debaters should write real planks. "Substantially increase aid to the Middle East" is not a real plank. Where? Who? How? It makes no sense to me that process counterplan debaters are generally forced to delve into the minutia of the mechanics by which their arguments function, but advantage counterplans are written incredibly vaguely.

D. Topicality

Don't have much to say here. Definitions are good. You should counterdefine words in the topic as the basis of an argument for why your interpretation of the topic is predictable and do a lot of comparative analysis when giving a 2NR on limits/precision. I think there's probably little distinction between "semantics" and "pragmatics" per se. There is probably a semi-bidirectional link between the two.

I have little patience for LDers that treat T like frivolous theory. No, I will not be happy evaluating your RVIs.

E. Phil/Theory

This is the type of debate in which I am the least experienced. I'll still vote on these arguments, but I had relatively little contact with them as a debater. However, I am studying philosophy in college, so I'll hopefully have some idea about what you're talking about. Better for fully carded kant, skep, etc (in the Texas DK style) and less good for cheapshots like hidden indexicals, etc.

I'm bad for theory that isn't from policy debate. ASPEC, condo, etc are fine. Spec status is not.

I will evaluate the debate after the 1NC. The 2AR is after the 1NC.

IV. Closing thoughts/idiosyncrasies

"Clipping tags is not a thing. Insert rehighlightings; read recuttings." - iva

"If you ask for a 30, you will receive a 25." - iva

"Not voting on call outs. Not my business." - brett

Blessing Kolawole Hire

Cyris Lim Hire

Last changed on Tue May 7, 2024 at 5:49 AM EDT

Current debater and co-captain at Dr Phillips High School in Lincoln-Douglas but have debated in Public Forum as well. Honestly, I'm cool to evaluate anything that is explained to me and that I can hear so feel free to run anything but make sure that the more complicated the argument gets, the better you explain it. With that being said, I do have my preferences, opinions, and pet peeves. (PF stuff at the bottom)

I prefer using Speechdrop but email chains are fine. Email: cyrislimdebates@gmail.com

(LD)

PANIC!!! WHAT DOES THIS JUDGE LIKE:

1 - Phil, Trix (phil), Trad

2 - Theory, T, Ks you can explain

3 - LARP, Identity Ks

4 - Friv Theory, Ks you can't explain,Trixs (26 off, opp can't have offense, etc.)

Strike - Performance Debates

Paradigm proper:

Phil - Personally love this form of debate and find that it is underutilized on the circuit and especially locally, people tend to opt for Policy, Util, or some other basic framework which is fine but Lincoln Douglas is the PHILOSOPHICAL debate event, it gets infinitely more interesting when framework is more than just a reused Morality Util one. Frameworks I particularly like are Kant, Hobbes, and Pettit (I know, I'm basic) but will appreciate anything new like Rand or Levinas. I don't particularly like Util, I'll weigh it but don't expect super high speaks (Usually will give +.1 for just having a non-Util/MSV fw). With this in mind, DO NOT run a framework your coach gave you just because I like phil, make sure you truly understand what it's talking about and how it interacts within the round; if I have reasonable grounds to doubt that you have any idea what your fw is saying, -1.0 speaks.

Theory - Honestly, I'll evaluate it as long as real abuse can be proved. Usually default DTD, Competing interps, no RVIs, yes to 1AR theory but can be convinced otherwise. I can be swayed to buy 2NR theory. Legit theory comes first on my ballot so it's usually key to respond to it. It'll be difficult to get me to vote on friv theory; my threshold on responses is SUPER low and the only way to win with friv theory is basically to have your opponent drop it or completely mishandle it.

Note on evidence ethic theories: I will always ask you after your speech whether you want to stake the round on it. If the answer is no, don't run the shell.

LARP - It's whatever, as long as it makes sense then I'll evaluate it. I default on a morality Util framing without any speaker deductions and will assume you will be weighing as such. Weighing is a MUST to properly secure my ballot in more policy-centric rounds. I always assume DAs turn case and Plans and CPS need a text telling me exactly what the plan is to properly evaluate it. (i.e. Resolved: The United States will slowly phase out fossil fuels by increasing renewable energy production from solar) Solvency is a MUST.

Ks- I think they're useful when done well and explained well. Ks that you cannot explain easily in the time provided to you should not be run as all it does is clutter the round. Ks HAVE TO HAVE an alt that can be acted upon; not just reject the aff. The alt can be a CP. Linking the K to the resolution, something your opponent is running, or to debate in general, clearly is key to making a coherent K and one I feel comfortable voting off of. I'm fine with K affs but no alt here, it should be the resolution text in place of the alt (unless it's radical, then pop off) and the K should function as your offense and not just a part of your offense, it's either go all in or not at all. If you've read my paradigm before, this is where I had identity Ks being a low pref but I'm going to be honest, they've kind of grown on me since I first made this. I still don't think I'm the best judge out there for judging identity Ks but I will definitely evaluate them a lot easier and more willingingly now. Key stipulation is that I will likely not know the lit very well (unless you are running Set Col, Model Minority, or Orientalism) so try to slow down and spend more time explaining the position.

As a general principle, I believe that: radicals alts >> normals alts >>>> reject the aff. Will eval any of them though, I just think some are def stronger than others with rejection being the weakest by far.

Quick side note, I've been loving the Academy K lately. Take that information as you will :)

Trixs- Honestly, as I become more active with using prog tactics, phil trixs have really grown on me. I kinda want you to try and run these if you can cause I feel like they create a fun debate but of course, won't get you the auto-win. Personally been running Kant 1AR indexicals and skep NC a lot and I find them fun to see and do. I don't like judging a billion Trixs so I won't be happy about it but you can run a full Trix case if you want to and I'll try my best to keep up. Key thing to keep in mind, if one of the Trix gets turned or a theory is read against you, you will most likely lose.

Performance - Just don't. Thank you :)

Other prefs:

Deontological arguments >>>>
Not a huge fan of PICs, will evaluate but pretty bugrudgingly.
Tech>Truth unless the arg is very obviously just untrue (1+1=2, it's non-negotiable)
I will try to not interfere within the round, my ballot is written by the debaters
Instant L and the lowest speakers possible for any xenophobic argument/comment (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc)
I will NOT pay too much attention during CX, this is your time, so I'll just passively listen
Don't just say "My opponent doesn't have a card for this" without explaining why it matters in the context of the round; this will not be treated as a response and will garner -0.2 speaks every time you say it
Speed is fine, if you spread, send doc
Signpost
I am a judge where if you want to test run a new case position/debating style/argument, you should. (Assuming you just want to figure out the viability of an argument and are not trying to guarantee a win)
I will give a verbal RFD/comments if the tournament allows and both debaters want it
I don't flow card names anymore because it forces you to properly extend arguments instead of just having your 1AR be "judge, extend x card, they clean conceded it". I care more about arguments than cards, extend the actual warranting and arguments instead of just a card

Common arguments I run: (Decided to add this here so you can see what kind of debater I am and what I'm most comfortable with)

Frameworks: Kant, Hobbes, Pettit, Rawls, Wu Wei
Ks: Model Minority/Orientalism, Security, Capitalism, Academy
Misc: Skep, Determinism, Theories (Disclosure, Condo, ESPEC, etc etc)

PF Stuff:

I'm putting this here just in case I do have to judge PF one day. I am an LDer at heart so I may judge things differently from more technical judges in PF, thus I would personally treat myself like a Lay -> lower Flay judge. (I will still understand and be able to keep up with technical arguments and speed though)

Coinflip should always happen through tab or in front of me, personal preference
NO PARAPHRASING, EVER, I'm not joking, just don't do it, I will not vote on paraphrased evidence
Signposting and weighing are key. Comparative worlds is a great tool for PF because it doesn't use a framework to weigh
Evidence should be able to be provided in under 45 seconds, if you can't produce it by then it'll be treated as an analytic and you should be more organized. I understand if there are technological issues, they will be treated differently
Everything you want to mention in your speech should have been extended in the previous speech
Theory is more sus in PF so probably try not to run it in front of me unless an actual abuse story can be traced that affects the round at large (disclosure is the only exception where it's gonna be a solid no from me)
Unless you give me a clear reason to do a different form of weighing, I default "bigger number wins"

Zaaviyar Malik Hire

Asher Norman Hire

Micheal Oliver Hire

Ajibola Anthony Ologunde Hire

Sukurat Oyedokun Hire

Ryan Parimi Hire

Last changed on Thu April 25, 2024 at 1:27 PM EDT

Ryan Parimi - Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

Email: ryan.parimi@gmail.com

About me:

Recent college grad--majored in English with minors in German, Chinese, and Business. Went to a very conservative school. Taking a gap year before law school.
College and high school debate coach/teacher (LD, PF, Parli)
High school and middle school mock trial coach
College moot court coach
Founded my university's debate program
Founded a speech and debate camp in Jakarta, Indonesia
Summer debate instructor at Yale, Drew, and U. of Washington

General Debate Stuff:

A coach once called me a debate "hipster"; though I enjoy a lot of the more "progressive" arguments, my philosophy of debate still centers on clear arguments and conversational, persuasive speech. After all, you’re trying to win me—not just win arguments in a vacuum. I want to be convinced. Talk to me, don't just talk at me.
I like aspects of both traditional and circuit debate. I wish the traditional community wouldn't let its fear of everything turning into policy keep it from adopting some helpful circuit norms, and I wish the circuit community would stop trying to convince itself that a total departure from traditional debate turns the activity into anything but an esoteric game with no real-life application.
Examples of cases that would be great for my taste: a Cap K that links reasonably to the resolution, argued in a more traditional style; a traditional case that demonstrates a deep understanding of the philosophy behind its framework; a tech case that restores my faith in humanity by making semi-reasonable arguments and doesn't force me to flow 10 subpoints of copy-paste garbage from the debate wiki.
Tech over truth (within reason). You should probably run your tech case for me if you're torn between tech and lay.
I ♥ when impacts, late-round weighing, and voters connect to your framing.
LARP begins and ends with an L :)
I actually know all of the NSDA's evidence rules.

Speed:

Prioritize clarity over speed. Spreading is lame, but I can flow it and won't vote you down solely because you chose to spread. If you spread, please be good at it: your articulation better not go down the drain, you better stay organized, etc. Bad spreading will tank your speaker points. Email me your case or give me a printed copy before the round if you plan on spreading.

Framework:

I’m fine with traditional and more modern frameworks. Just make whatever you’re using clear. Be aware that I have a very good understanding of the philosophy behind most frameworks...don't try to BS me on Kant or Rawls or something. I will know. That being said, I believe it's on the debaters to call each other out on stuff like that. I'm going to flow it unless it's crazy.
Please don't throw the framework debate away. It's what makes LD special.

Kritiks and Theory:

I haven't judged a ton of Ks because I come from a pretty traditional circuit, but a well-developed K could certainly convince me. Similar to the philosophy behind traditional frameworks, I'm familiar with the critical theories behind most Ks.
Theory arguments are fine when there is actual abuse--just explain clearly. Don't throw in an RVI just because, save those for something truly egregious.
I hate disclo and will not vote on it with one exception. Look: disclo sucks, and I'm not even sure why we still let people get away with trying to win on disclo in 2024. Part of debate is learning how to analyze and respond to arguments on the fly. Yes, it's hard. No, I'm not going to give you a win for whining about it being hard. Here's the one exception: if you didn't share your case and you're super spreading (like 400 wpm) to the point where flowing is literally impossible, I will give you the L if your opponent runs disclo.

Other random stuff:

I like reading Alexander Pope, collecting shoes, listening to Chinese rap, and exploring Marxist criticism.
I will follow the NSDA rules for LD whenever questions come up that the rules address. I follow tradition/best practices for anything else. If you have questions about specific preferences, just ask before the round.

Charles Peterson Hire

Ben Rask Hire

Last changed on Sun May 5, 2024 at 1:46 PM EDT

add me to the email chain: brask225@gmail.com

tech > truth

3 yrs of pf on nat cir (so far)

general:

keep offtime roadmaps short

theory is good, but you have to send a doc. im not good at evaluating k's so its probably safer not to read them on me

send a doc if you are going to spread, but im not going to flow off it - if i have to say clear more than twice ill stop flowing

if an argument isn't responded to in the next speech it's conceded, with the exception of second constructive unless first constructive gives a warrant otherwise (this means second rebuttal has to frontline everything or its conceded)

analytics are good if they have warrants; simply saying "they don't read evidence" isn't a sufficient frontline; warranted ev > warranted analytic > unwarranted ev > unwarranted analytic

speaks start at 28.5 and go up or down for how well you do what i ask in my paradigm

if you are going to concede defense to kick out of a turn, you have to say explicitly what responses you are conceding and how it takes out their turn -- doesn't have to be more than 5 seconds AND it has to come in the speech after the defense was read

evidence:

pls have cut cards and read paraphrasing theory

set up an email chain before round ; if you take more than a minute to find one piece of evidence, your speaks will tank

likewise, don't call for an unnecessary amount of evidence; if i think you're stealing prep while calling for evidence, ill dock your speaks a lot

to avoid all this, if you send all the cards you read before your constructive and rebuttal ill give you +1 speaks

backhalf:

please collapse

if you want it to be on my ballot it has to be extended with a warrant in summary and final

defense isn't sticky

extend all parts of an argument (uniqueness, link, internal link, impact) in the backhalf, theory shells must be extended in rebuttal

if you go for a link turn, extend the impact. if you go for an impact turn, extend the link. otherwise, i'm not voting on it.

pls weigh, metaweigh, and respond to their weighing so i know what to vote for, otherwise i dont know how to evaluate the round

Austen Richardson Holy Trinity Episcopal Academy

Last changed on Thu March 28, 2024 at 10:22 PM EDT

Please put me in the email chain:austen.richardson@students.htes.org

Quick prefs:

1 - LARP, pomo Ks, theory

2 - Phil

3 - K affs, trad

4 - friv theory, trix

5 - identity Ks

You can run anything in front of me. These prefs are basically just what I enjoy listening to but I promise I don't care what you read.

Okay now specific stuff

Longer version of prefs

I honestly just don't like identity Ks, I probably don't know the lit
K affs can be okay if you're good at them, I'm totally fine with a K aff just be good at it honestly
pomo Ks are cool, I read psycho and I think I generally understand other stuff like baudy

Theory

I want you to read theory in front of me
I like spec shells
Friv theory exists, I'll evaluate it so if u just want like a timesuck then sure but the threshold for response gets really low the more friv the shell is
Disclo is usually a pretty easy win for me. Just disclose guys (If this is an EIF tournament tho then don’t run disclosure)

Phil

I'm probably more familiar with Kant
I'm fine with Phil, honestly I just think these debates kinda get boring sometimes but run it if it's your main strat
Just overexplain everything and it'll be fine

Tricks

Lowkey kinda fun
Don't extemp tricks tho pls I won't hear it
I read determinism a lot and paradoxes are cool

Trad

I don’t care about presentation at all I’ll vote on the flow
long fw debates over similar values annoy me. If your values are both consequentialist just roll with it pls
Concessions will weigh very heavy on my decision, meaning if you concede something you are extremely likely to lose. However I need someone to actually point out the concession for it to count

General Thoughts/Defaults

These can be changed with args but if there's nothing on it I'll just default to these

Permissibility flows aff, Presumption flows neg
I think generally condo is good for debate but anything over like 3 condo offs gets iffy
Tech > truth
I don't want to vote on T but I will if I have to
I won't flow cross but I'll listen
Claim, warrant, impact everything please
Signposting is good and always give an order before the speech
Comparative worlds
Education > fairness

Speaker Points

Speaks are arbitrary
I think I’m generally down to give good speaks tho, probably 29+ but can vary

Conceding stuff will make me more likely to give u bad speaks. The point of debate is to clash, so clash with everything pleaseeeee. Tricks I can understand, whole contentions in trad rounds, no.

Zachary Jacob Rubin Hire

Last changed on Sat March 30, 2024 at 7:26 AM EDT

'*•.¸♡ Hello! ♡¸.•*' ₍ ᐢ.ˬ.ᐢ₎˚୨୧

˚୨୧⋆｡˚ ⋆ My name is Zachary Rubin, and I am a student ('26) from Fox Chapel Area, Pennsylvania! ⋆ ˚｡⋆୨୧˚

╰┈➤ Email: zacharyrubindebate@gmail.com (Pls include me on email chains!)

✎ (❁ᴗ͈ˬᴗ͈) ༉‧ About me!

*.·:·.✧ I am a policy debater, but I have some LD and speech experience! I have debated locally all around PA, but I've also competed at the national circuit a few times. I have gone for all types of arguments, but I'm particularly fond of T and Ks. Pronouns: He/Him ✧.·:·.*

.・。.・゜✭・.・✫・゜・。..・。.・゜✭・.・✫・゜・。..・。.・゜✭・.・✫・゜・。..・。.・゜✭・.・✫・゜・。.

˚₊· ͟͟͞͞➳❥ General things

ꕥ I advise you to read my entire paradigm, it may be helpful!

ꕥ PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE be nice to your opponents! I know debate can get tense but try to be kind and understanding.

ꕥ Do not send documents as a pdf. Word docs are HIGHLY preferable.

ꕥ Don't be afraid to have fun! A lot of people are super tense during debate and joking around is a good way to relieve that (of course, not at the expense of the debate or others).

ꕥ Tech over truth

ꕥ I will vote on pretty much anything! Even reluctantly, if you can explain why you won the debate, I still will vote on arguments I dislike. Unless it's racist, sexist, homophobic, etc., I won't vote you down.

ꕥ Please explain things if your opponent asks during cross-ex. It's courteous.

ꕥ You cannot take cross-ex time as prep. That is not real. You can, however, take prep to ask cross-ex questions.

ꕥ Open cross-ex is fine by me, but ask your opponents if you want it.

ꕥ I look unfavorably upon debaters who do not let their partners speak when they ask.

ꕥ I will flow to the best of my ability!

ꕥ Go as fast as you want, but if you zip through analytics, don't expect me to reliably catch all of it. I won't impugn you for spreading, but just make sure you are clear.

ꕥ Please clearly weigh arguments, it makes judging so much easier and it's always safer to default to the easier ballot.

ꕥ For online debate, please have your camera on

ꕥ I will trust you to time yourselves. That being said, do not steal prep. Also, don't take 10 minutes to send out the speech doc.

ꕥ Do what you can to win, I understand. Better to win dishonorably than to lose with honor, that's the norm in debate. That being said, don't relish in dunking on your opponents. Also, basic courtesy and kindness are the least you can do.

ꕥ I will be generous with speaks, but if you're abusive I will dock them and if you're sexist/racist I will nuke them.

.・。.・゜✭・.・✫・゜・。..・。.・゜✭・.・✫・゜・。..・。.・゜✭・.・✫・゜・。..・。.・゜✭・.・✫・゜・。.

˚₊· ͟͟͞͞➳❥ Policy Debate

I am a competitor in Policy Debate myself, so that's the event I have the most experience in.

ˏˋ°•*⁀➷ Topicality:

ꕥ I love T debate!

ꕥ Please explain the impacts to your interp succinctly and weigh it against your opponents' interp.

ꕥ I am particularly fond of link and internal link debates on the impacts to various interps.

ꕥ I've gone for some pretty absurd interps before, so don't be afraid to go for whatever you want!

ꕥ You always need a counter-interp. If you refuse to counter-define the word (unless you have sufficient other offense against the interpretation), I consider the argument to have been dropped and will default to the negative's interpretation.

ꕥ Make sure to give judge instruction!

ꕥ Reasonability isn't really a real impact, I'm not inclined to prefer it over tangible, measurable impacts like clash, ground, etc.If your opponents' arg is bad, explain why succinctly. In my opinion, defaulting to (often unwarranted) claims of unreasonability comes off as whiny. If you do decide to read it as an impact, please paint me a picture as to what a "reasonable" debate/interp looks like.

ꕥ For T-usfg/T-fw, it definitely comes down to the impact level. I'm fond of K affs, and I think they can definitely be tools for good, so both sides need to defend why having a topical policy debate is good/bad and why the content of the 1ac is good/bad.

ꕥ You probably need framing for DAs against T interps. I don't think this needs to be super long, but just a line about why the 1nc interp should not have been read is necessary if you go for this in the 2ar.

ꕥ T is a procedural, so the T debate is a question of orders. If the neg wins that the aff is untopical, it means that the 1ac should not have been read. If the aff wins a DA against the neg interp, it means the 1nc should not have been read. Please paint me a clear picture of the entire debate in the 2nr/2ar, and what the order of the debate should have been.

ˏˋ°•*⁀➷ Kritiks

ꕥ I am mostly a K debater myself, so I have a lot of opinions about this

ꕥ I read a lot of K theory and philosophy in my spare time so I will probably have a bit of knowledge on whatever you go for. Keeping that in mind, I look unfavorably upon those who read Ks they don't understand themselves. Please explain the thesis of your K to both the judge and your opponent, as I’m hesitant to vote on Ks where the central argument hasn’t been developed, and it comes off as though you are disingenuous about your scholarship.

ꕥ I'm good for K affs!

ꕥ KvK debate is always fun to watch! I enjoy these types of debates.

ꕥ Framework is key to every K debate. Make sure you have both offense and defense and explain why your fw is preferable.

ꕥ Framework should be in the 2ar/2nr

ꕥ I think that Ks that fiat something are pretty dumb

ꕥ Impact turns are good, link turns are good.

ꕥ You should probably have specific links. Generic links lose to specific link turns.

ꕥ Cap is too often read as a throwaway K. Just have real links, please. Frankly, I don't care about the story either. Also, the world peace cp is bad and the capitalism da is bad. Too many people read cap but don't read it as an actual K. Please defend alt solvency and the link.

ꕥ PoMo is good! Esp Baudrillard and DnG. They're great authors.

ꕥ I'm generally good for identity Ks. I find "vote for me because I'm marginalized" args to be tiring and I'm not particularly inclined to vote for anything like that. However, if you can paint me a picture of the world from the eyes of the K, I can be fond of these Ks.

ꕥ I'm not inclined to vote for the fiat K if it doesn't have specific links.

ꕥ Indicts against authors need framing. Even if the guy is bad, why should I vote against the K? Explain this if you read indicts.

ꕥ Heidegger indicts are real!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ꕥ I am EXTREMELY inclined to vote against the Christianity/Evangelization K. I do not believe this K is productive.

ꕥ Non-western philosophy is under-utilized in debate. I'm extremely fond of anything written outside of the eurocentric/america-centric sphere when read in debate.

ꕥ You probably shouldn't read identity Ks/afropess/etc if you are not of that group.

ꕥ Some Ks I've gone for: Cap, Baudrillard, PoMo nonsense, Feminism, Agamben, Setcol, Jewish Pessimism K, Death Cult K, Gregorian Calendar K, various PIKs.

ˏˋ°•*⁀➷ Theory

ꕥ Make sure to clearly establish the violation.

ꕥ Condo is a question of models, yes I will vote aff on 1-off condo. That being said, don't be afraid to run 153-off condo if you want. I am not particularly pre-disposed to either side. I will flow and vote for who I think won the flow.

ꕥ I will vote on misgendering if it happens multiple times in-round.

ꕥ Hiding aspec is cowardice. Yes I will still vote on it. Yes I have done it. Multiple times.

ꕥ I will vote on spreading if both teams agreed not to spread beforehand.

ꕥ I will generally vote on disclosure theory. However, I am hesitant if the Aff is new, as non-disclosure for new affs is the norm in debate, unless you give me a very good reason.

ꕥ I will vote on random/dumb theory arguments, but give me a good reason. If you have real warrants, I will consider any argument.

ꕥ It's never too late to put in a new in-round violation (as long as it's real). If your opponents did something deeply objectionable that makes debate a worse place, I will vote against them.

ꕥ I'll vote on an RVI, but give me good reason, and have defense for your interp.

ꕥ I don't feel particularly inclined to vote on out-of-round stuff like wiki violations

ꕥ I'm good for fiat theory (50 state fiat, mindset fiat, international fiat, etc.) and can find it quite convincing

ˋ°•*⁀➷ Counterplans

ꕥ I think CPs are fun!

ꕥ Go for weird CPs if you want

ꕥ I don't have too much experience going for CPs, so I don't have a deep understanding of competition/theory arguments, so debate at your own risk

ˏˋ°•*⁀➷ Other

ꕥ Yes, I will vote on wipeout.

ꕥ On DAs, recency matters in terms of evidence.

ꕥ Do risk and impact calc.

ꕥ I don't find vagueness/spec arguments convincing unless there's a tangible impact

ꕥ presumption is probably true but explain why I should care

.・。.・゜✭・.・✫・゜・。..・。.・゜✭・.・✫・゜・。..・。.・゜✭・.・✫・゜・。..・。.・゜✭・.・✫・゜・。.

˚₊· ͟͟͞͞➳❥ Lincoln-Douglas Debate

ˏˋ°•*⁀➷ General Stuff

ꕥ I only really have had local LD experience, so I may be unfamiliar with LD-specific prog terminology or norms. If it's not present in policy or trad LD, I may not understand it. That being said, I'm totally open to whatever and I will be listening, so you can just say "judge, 'x' means 'y' by the way", and I will be caught up to speed.

ꕥ I will not have in-depth topic knowledge, so keep that in mind.

ꕥ In LD, the affirmative has to defend the resolution, that's the burden of proof. Even if the case is super good, if it strays too far from the central point (the resolution), it is at risk to the aff. Personally, I do not care too much, but debate at your own risk if you want to go for tangential stuff. This applies to theory stuff too. If you go for theory, please explain why the impact outweighs the possibility of having a productive debate about the resolution. This isn't meant to dissuade you from going for this stuff, just be careful.

ꕥ I don't get how CPs work in LD. You're not policymakers, you're philosophers, right? Go for them if you want, but please explain exactly why this is a real argument and not just a concession/nonsense.

ˏˋ°•*⁀➷ Framework

ꕥ Huge fan of Framework! It's the unique aspect of LD that differentiates it from other events

ꕥ Make sure you weigh frameworks and have sufficient offense AND defense to the other's framework.

ꕥ Framework isn't an instant-win, but it's still vital.

ꕥ I enjoy deeply philosophical discussions about the resolution and the round. Make me learn something or think about something differently!

ˋ°•*⁀➷ Kritiks

ꕥ Cross-apply what I wrote in the policy section above.

ˏˋ°•*⁀➷ Theory

ꕥ Cross-apply what I wrote in the policy section above.

ꕥ LD tricks are certainly interesting. I will vote on them, but often reluctantly. If you have warrants, go for what you want. But otherwise, I don't feel particularly inclined to vote for an unwarranted "vote aff to vote neg" even if the other team dropped it. That being said, they are undeniably fun, so I have nothing against them.

ˏˋ°•*⁀➷ Philosophy

ꕥ I may be unfamiliar with a lot of LD-specific philosophy, so keep that in mind. Generally, you should explain whatever you read, as it comes off as a lot more convincing too.

ꕥ I suggest that you do not read Heidegger in front of me.

ꕥ I am a huge fan of Chinese philosophy! If you read anything from Kongzi, Laozi, Zhuangzi, Han Fei, Xunzi, etc. I will be very excited.

.・。.・゜✭・.・✫・゜・。..・。.・゜✭・.・✫・゜・。..・。.・゜✭・.・✫・゜・。..・。.・゜✭・.・✫・゜・。.

˚₊· ͟͟͞͞➳❥ Other Events

ꕥ I don't have much parli or pf knowledge, so forgive me if I don't know many of the norms.

ꕥ Speech events are mostly self-explanatory. Also, I have acting experience myself so I will factor in the quality of acting into the performance. Do your best and I will judge my best!

.・。.・゜✭・.・✫・゜・。..・。.・゜✭・.・✫・゜・。..・。.・゜✭・.・✫・゜・。..・。.・゜✭・.・✫・゜・。.

˚₊· ͟͟͞͞➳❥ Bonus!

Extra speaks for:

ꕥ Making me audibly laugh (don't strain yourself tho)

ꕥ Speaking in another language for 10 seconds

'*•.¸♡ Have Fun Debating! ♡¸.•*'

₍ ᐢ.ˬ.ᐢ₎˚୨୧

Imad Shaikh Hire

William Trinh Hire

Last changed on Sun May 12, 2024 at 7:44 AM PDT

Hey y'all! I'm Will (he/him) and I primarily did LD on the National Circuit. Qualified to the TOC my senior year reading every argument under the sun. This does not matter though.

Speechdrop is easier but I prefer email chain.

Email: trinhwilliam258@gmail.com

Shortened this cause yapping is silly but if you wanna see my weird takes here's this document.

This paradigm will only include stuff for prefs/weird defaults I have that can all be reversed in two seconds.

I am a slightly more fascist but less grumpy version of Holden Bukowsky so you can pref me where you would pref them but lower cause I'm young.

The prefs below don't represent my particular liking for arguments but rather my ability to comfortably evaluate them.

Clipping tags and analytics have not been, are not, and will never be a thing. If your opponent cannot flow, they should lose. If your judge also cannot flow, you should strike them. Saying the words 'clipping tags' will result in a reverse postround.

I will flow on my laptop and mostly by ear. I will only look at the speech doc to see if you are clipping (though I will not call out clipping unless it is patently egregious).

The above comment is in response to the shockingly terrible state of flowing and evidence ethics in our activity. If you ask for a marked doc before running CX/Prep and the speech marked less than 3 cards, I am capping your speaks at a 29. This does not apply if you take prep or CX to ask for a marked doc or wait until CX is over for the marked doc. That is perfectly fine.

LD Prefs:

1: Policy or Kritikal Arguments. T (of all types) Straight up Phil. Clash rounds

3-4: Tricky Phil (Determinism is not tricky).

4-5: Dense Theory Shells/Trix

I don't know if this means anything, but some of my friends in Debate I share varying levels of takes with include Albert Cai, Aiden Kim, and Iva Liu.

TLDR:

I have massive respect for all the work people do for debates. I am tired of seeing teams not put their best foot forward because of judge dogmatism. Thus, I promise you I will do the best of my ability to evaluate every argument before me. These days, most debaters are more scared of incompetent judges than their opponents themselves. As such, I will never intervene unless necessary (I HAVE LISTED CLAIMS I REFUSE TO VOTE ON SO BE WARNED), and you should feel free to postround however aggressively you may want.

The statement below is stolen from Lizzie Su.

That being said, I will only vote on ARGUMENTs. That is claims with warrants. I have no problem voting on some absurd arguments in debate such as skep or must disclose round reports but you cannot extend a shell hidden in the 1AC for 6 seconds like no neg fiat and expect to win.

Non negotiable

Claims I refuse to vote on regardless of how you warrant them. (Many stolen from Alice Waters)

Evaluate/Adjudicate (you get the idea) after the 1AC/1NC.

Ad homs/ arguments about a debater/ callouts (if something is genuinely unsafe for you, let me or tab know before round.)

Any morally repugnant arg (i.e. saying racism good, saying slurs, etc.) (No you can still read heg good vs Indentity affs...) The round will end.

Give me/my opponent [x] speaks

No aff/neg arguments, or any other argument that precludes your opponent from answering based on the truth of the argument. (NO YOU CAN NOT GO FOR NO 2NR I MEETS).

Arguments that were read in a speech but you say were not in CX or that you do not mention if asked what was read (for instance: if being asked if there are any indep. voters and you do not mention one, that is not a viable collapse anymore)

Prep ends when the doc is saved. Please don't abuse this privilege to take 2 minutes to send a speech document.

Misc: All of this can be changed with one word. Debate it out.

"K debaters cheat. Policy debaters lie. If you believe both these statements to be true pref me in the 1-25th percentile."

Offense/Defense Good.

Competing Interps, DTA, No RVI

Permissibility and Presumption Negate

Comparative Worlds

Epistemic Confidence

Logic outweighs

TJFs are questionable but winnable.

Insert rehighlighting for CP solvency advocates/defense. Read for everything else. If it's a different part of the article, read it.

By insert rehiglighting, you must explain in the speech you insert it what you are trying to assert... i.e you must say "X piece of evidence concludes (insert fact) Insert!" You cannot do "X concludes neg. Insert!" The former is evidence comparison. The other is stupidity.

Same thing applies to inserting perm texts.

Tristan Voss Hire

Last changed on Mon April 15, 2024 at 3:52 AM EDT

Current Varsity debater at DPHS. I’ve done 3 years of LD and have dabbled in some other events. Yes I’ll evaluate any argument you put in front of me no matter how ridiculous, as long as you have some evidence. I'd consider myself a Tech judge despite what some other might say but i'm not high tech.

Tech>truth

I can’t use speechdrop as of the 2024 season so we’re gonna have to roll with email chain if you’re spreading

tristanvoss2006@gmail.com

LD stuff

times sat 0

LARP, Phil
Theory, Trad
POMO K
Trix

S - Identity K, Performance

PHIL - So personally I think philosophy is the heart of LD, otherwise it’s just one one man pf. With that being said, I’d like it if you used more than just the generic forms of phil everyone use’s (i.e Kant, Hobbes, and stock util). If you run something especially unique/funny, I’ll give you extra speaks

LARP - Plans and counterplans are fun to evaluate, just make it make sense. A 50 states CP is frowned upon by me because you’re not even negating at that point and the aff basically has to fumble very hard for me not to vote for them

Theory - Y’all, hear me out, I learned theory this year and it’s actually fun so I’ll vote on most shells. Friv theory isn’t real. Theory goes at the top of the flow and will be the first thing I evaluate unless instructed otherwise. I agree with disclosure theory so if you have an “I meet”, then have it ready with screenshots. The same goes if you're reading disclosure, prove to me that they did violate and you’re not just making it up.

(Disclosure is only for TOC tournaments and the Varsity state tournament)

Trix - Ok, so I’m not going to vote on your 26 off case that are all one line. It’s not fair to your opponent and neither of you learn anything in the round. Lastly, you kill the spirit of debate by doing this. but some trix are fine and i will evaluate it if it's simple trix and its obviouse that you're both experienced prog debaters

Ks - Ks are a fun form of debate in my opinion. I’ve watched them a few times. I get them and I’d still vote on it if you can explain it well enough to me, basically explain it to me like I’m a toddler or you're rolling the dice.

Other prefs

No flex prep
Only a warrant needs a card
Instant L and you’ll be reported to tab for doing anything xenophobic racism, sexism, homophobia, etc (you’re almost adults, learn how to behave in public if this is going to be an issue)
No paraphrasing evidence, it's becoming bad norm in debate and is arguable an evidence violation
Don't just say they don't have a card for that.

Speaker points

Don’t worry, You start at 29 and move up and down from there

Nadia Wellington Hire

Chloe Wolf Hire

Andrew Xu Hire

Last changed on Sat March 30, 2024 at 6:45 AM EDT

East Chapel Hill HS ‘25, did pf for 1.5 years and ld for 1.5

Email: andrewxu4321@gmail.com add me to the chain, fileshare/speechdrop are faster but email is fine too

Trad paradigm at the bottom

Fine with speed but please go 70% of your speed if online and be clear -- I'm really not the best flower esp if online.

Paradigm is work in progress — I’ll add stuff from time to time

Be nice and read simpler stuff and/or go slow against novices/lay debaters for +0.5 speaks

Tech > truth, but truer args have a lower threshold for warranting and more tolerance for new explanations toward later speeches.

Read anything and i’ll vote on anything just dont be problematic.

Give judge instruction pls

I like innovative arguments but please make them make sense and have real warrants

I read mostly larp + theory + psychoanalysis, and some cap k + baudrillard + setcol (wiki https://opencaselist.com/hsld23/EastChapelHill/AnXu). More specifics below.

Very very very bad for phil (except determinism) and substantive tricks (paradoxes & logic stuff), moderately bad for dense k's.

Defaults (easily changed):

Competing interps no rvis dta

Judge kick is good but only if you tell me to

Insert rehighlighting is fine

Larp

Zero risk in policy contexts is probably only possible if the linkchain is incomplete/bad/doesnt make sense. Otherwise I’m willing to buy marginal risks of offense if the only responses are defensive

Cheaty cp’s are fun — read them but be prepared to answer objections

Might need more explanation for competition debates

Link weighing is underrated

Turns are strongest when they come with defense and uniqueness flips

Topicality

I try to evaluate T as tech as possible and won’t gut check vote on something just because it feels non-T or because the shell feels dumb.

“Circuit norms” is probably not a real argument

Reasonability on T is fine — just have a brightline and explain what it means to be reasonable

I don’t get the hate for nebel/leslie

1ar should probably take some sort of stance on semantics vs pragmatics -- otherwise it would be too new in the 2ar

Try to give good judging instruction -- T debates sometimes hurt my brain for some reason

Theory

I read theory a lot, go for it

No such thing as friv theory

The side reading the shell has the burden of establishing a violation

Always good to clarify the violation from the start unless it’s obvious, debates where the violation is unclear and the other team contests it are hard to resolve

I like good and smart paradigm issues debates

High threshold for dtd or at least give a coherent reason — “deters bad debates in the future” or "this argument encourages clash evasion" isn’t rly a reason to dtd, just answer the argument. Ig I'll vote on it if dropped but for those kinds of shells dta is very persuasive

I’m familiar with cap, baudrillard, psychoanalysis, a little bit of setcol, also comfortable judging identity stuff that doesn’t have complex lit. Anything else you should probably overexplain.

LBL and techy debate > long overviews -- I'll probably zone out if you're just yapping. I listen to cx, use that information as you will

I’ll write more here

K Affs

More familiar with identity, cap, and baudrillard affs, less so for other ones

TFW intuitively leans neg for me, if you’re aff please explain out of round impacts that are unique to your model. I find arguments like “fairness and limits preludes testing of your strategies” and "presume the aff false bc abuse prevents me from contesting it" persuasive

Phil

Honestly I don’t rly understand most phil I’m not the best judge for it but determinism is fine

Slightly less bad for kant

Cards are cool

Focusing on big picture things is more persuasive instead of being caught up LBLing everything

Tricks

Theory tricks are fine

Paradoxes/logic aprioris/truth testing tricks -- pls dont, they hurt my brain

Trad

Trad is lowk boring — speaks will be high if you read interesting or innovative arguments and execute them well.

I don’t care about your presentation — I vote off the flow

Have good evidence and warranting pls, I like when people extract key warrants from cards

Link defense and link weighing are underrated

Don’t just extend — implicate in the context of the round and explain why that means you win

Don’t waste time debating the value — morality and justice are the same thing ffs — most fw debates should be at the criterion level

Cross apply everything from the larp section if it’s a util debate

Denitsa Zvetkova MAST@FIU

Login to Tabroom

3rd Annual Spring Break Special

2024 — Online, US

Lincoln-Douglas Debate Paradigm List

Judges